1920-04-06

MEMBER ELECT.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that, the Clerk of the House has received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery certificate of the election and return of Adolph Stein, Esq.,, for the electoral district of Kamouraska.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED.

[Stage Direction]
Adolph Stein/ Esq., member for the electoral division of Kamouraska, introduced by Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Mr. Ernest Lapointe.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 46, for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and Bulgaria.
He said: The Bill is, in form, the same as the Bill introduced and passed at the last session relating to the treaties of peace with Germany and Austria. Hon. members will recall that the Senate amended the Bill last session so as to make it include other treaties of peace. Objection was taken- and, I think, reasonably so-by members of the Opposition to passing legislation affecting treaties before those treaties had been submitted to the House. It is therefore necessary to have a special Bill to deal with the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) it was ordered that the House do go into committee to-morrow to consider a proposed resolution respecting Civil Service insurance.

[Stage Direction]
*'On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. VV. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader v of the Opposition): The Minister of Marine said the other evening that he would have placed on Hansard a business statement of vfhe results of operation of the ships comprising the Canadian Merchant Marine. I am informed that the record does not appear on Hansard, and I would ask the minister to have it placed there if possible.
Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine):: Such a statement, if not read, could be placed on Hansard only by unanimous consent. I was not aware that unanimous consent was given on the occasion to [DOT]which my hon. friend refers; otherwise, the ^statement would have appeared in Hansard.
-ACQUISITION OF LOTBINIERE AND MEGANTIiC RAILWAY.
rOn the Orders of the Day:


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: A despatch is going *the rounds of the press to the effect that the Government has acquired the Lotbiniere and Megantic railway, which is said to be about thirty miles long. Will the Minister *of Railways tell the House whether or not 'that is the fact?


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways):: An Order in Council has been passed authorizing us to take over the Lotbiniere and Megantic railway. It is a small line, and is -feeing acquired in accordance with an Act [DOT]passed a-couple of years ago in connection with the taking over of the Quebec and Saguenay railway. I do not think that we 'have actually taken possession as yet, but *we are to take possession in a short time.
Mr. 'McKENZIE : Has the price been set-* tied?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, the price was laid [DOT] Hown in the Act.



BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIANS.

[Stage Direction]
'*SETTLEMENT OF DIFFERENCES CONCERNING INDIAN LANDS.
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 13-Hon. Mr. .Meighen- to provide for the settlement of differences between the Governments of the Dominion of Canada and the Province of British Columbia -respecting Indian lands and certain other Indian affairs in the said province, Mr. Boivin in the chair.

On section 2-Power given to Governor in Council to settle differences between Canada and British Columbia respecting Indian matters.
The CHAIRMAN:: When this Bill was
last in Committee we had reached clause 2, which had been allowed to stand.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The member
for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) is specially interested in this Bill, and I suggest that the Minister of the Interior agree to either a postponement of its consideration, or the taking up of the third reading on a subsequent occasion when the member for Three Rivers is here.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I will agree to the second proposal.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall clause 2 carry?


Mr. CAHILL:: Read the clause.


Georges Henri Boivin: The clause was read
when the Bill was last undeir consideration in committee.


Frank S. Cahill: When does the minister
expect a final adjustment to l}e arrived at as outlined in clause 2 ? A lot of money has been spent.


Arthur Meighen: As soon as we can get the British Columbia Government to agree. We know our mind in the matter and have communicated with the British Columbia Government accordingly. We have not been able to get their acquiescence, nor have we been able to get as yet a definite statement of their position in the premises. We intend to address ourselves to a solution just as soon as .we have the power to do so.


Frank S. Cahill: How much additional cost will be involved?


Arthur Meighen: None at all. The expenditure was all made long before I took over the department.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: The minister
stated the other day, when we were discussing the Bill, that the report had been made some time ago. I should like to know if the report is printed and available to the members.


Arthur Meighen: I could not say definitely as to the report being printed, although I am morally certain that it was printed. But I know it is available to members; it was laid on the Table of the House some years ago and may now be found in the hands of the proper custodian.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 3-power to order reductions or cut-offs from Reserves without surrender by Indians.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Possibly it is my fault that I do not know very much about this subject, but perhaps the minister would not mind giving us some explanation as to the extent of land that is dealt with in this Bill and what is included in the purport of this legislation. Although we might have had an opportunity of seeing this report, we did not see it, and the minister might, therefore, give us a brief explanation of the report.


Arthur Meighen: The report, as the hon. member knows, is the report of a joint commission appointed by the Government of British Columbia and the Government of the Dominion of Canada pursuant to Orders in Council passed by the respective Governments, embodying an agreement entered into by Sir Richard McBride and representatives of the Indian Department. The agreement provided for the final settlement of differences that had arisen during a period of two or three decades, having to do primarily with the claim of the province of British Columbia to a reversionary interest in all Indian lands in that province, and to a definition of what reversionary interest, if any such exist, should be, and having to do as well with the areas of Indian Reserves in the province, their sufficiency for the purpose of the various tribes or their superabundance in area for the purposes of the tribes. The commission performed its work extending over a very long period of time and made tertain recommendations as to the disposal of the [DOT]question of reversionary interest, as to delimiting Reserves that were believed to be larger than necessary and as to increasing others that were believed to be smaller than essential. The provision of the report covering the subject of reversionary interest aimed at deciding the question in this way, that where land was to be sold that had already been alloted to Indian tribes in Reserves, the proceeds should be divided equally between the province and the Dominion, the Dominion to utilize its moiety in trust for the purpose of the administration	of	the	affairs of the
Indians themselves, the province to be entitled absolutely to its share. The Dominion has not, and indeed the government of the Dominion as a Government would not have constitutional power to admit the existence of a reversionary interest at all; but the terms of
section 13 of the Act of Union and of subsequent Orders that were passed were such that a claim was put forward to this reversionary interest, the same to take effect upon the giving up of any Reserve by the tribe. If a Reserve is given up by a tribe permanently and a new Reserve has to be found, it is essential for the purposes of Indian administration that the proceeds of the sale of the first Reserve should be placed in the trust fund, the same as in the case of all surrenders in the province, for the administration of the affairs of the tribe. The report, as I have pointed out, looks to a settlement of the reversionary interest claim along the lines indicated, and looks to a readjustment of the areas of the various Reserves by means of cutoffs and additions, the amounts being specifically set out in the report. I can give the committee the details as to the amount to be cut off in any special Reserve or as to the amount to be added; the cut-offs exceeded the additions. The principle difficulty involved is in connection with this Kitsilano Reserve in British Columbia. As the hon. member will remember, the Kitsilano Reserve has been taken by the Harbour Commissioners of British Columbia; settlement has not yet been made; but if pursuant to the passing of this Bill we are able to agree upon a settlement in acceptance of the terms of the commission's report, then we shall be able to get the moneys paid by the Harbour Commissioners for the Kitsilano Reserve and to distribute it in pursuance of the terms of the report.
The British Columbia Government has never indicated a willingness to accept the terms of the commission's report. The Orders in Council establishing the commission did not bind either government definitely and absolutely to an acceptance of the report; they bound the governments only to a sympathetic reception of the report and to acquiescence therein to the utmost extent that could be deemed reasonable by each. As a matter of finality that agreement amounted to very little. We have stated our willingness to accept the report in toto; the British Columbia Government made certain tentative suggestions which they afterwards recalled; but they have never placed us in definite and final possession of their views or their position in the premises at all. They, however, obtained from their legislature at its last session, powers to negotiate with the Dominion Government looking to such further adjustments as they think right and to settle with

the Dominion Government finally upon the terms of the report as so adjusted. We are seeking similar powers, and if this Bill passes, we shall have them. It will be obvious to the committee that there would be no use in the Dominion Government taking power to settle the terms of the report, and to agree W'ith the Provincial Government thereon, if it were still in the power of an Indian tribe to refuse acquiescence to any single feature of the report. Consequently, in this clause we ask that we be given power to make such cut-offs- there is no need to do so in respect to the additions-as are essential to the carrying out of the report as it may be jointly amended, if it may be at all, by the two governments. That is the whole purport of this legislation.


Mr. FIELDING:: I do not doubt that all the objects of this Bill are good, but I cannot help thinking that the clause under consideration is unusually broad. Possibly it has a broader effect than my hon. friend intended. It provides that notwithstanding anything in the Indian Act, the Governor in -Council may make agreements to carry out this purpose. That is a very broad statement. You set aside the whole Indian Act and transfer all its powers as regards this transaction to the Governor in Council. That is giving a good deal of power to the Governor in Council, ani :<t seems to me that if it be intended to depart from the Indian Act, the minister should bring down an amendment to that Act dealing with the case. The clause further provides that the Government:
-may carry on such further negotiations and enter into such further agreements with the Government of the province of British Columbia as may be found necessary for a full and final adjustment of the differences between the said Governments.
These adjustments may involve the payment of money. I do not know whether my hon. friend would contend that under that clause the Governor in Council would have the right to pay -money. However, my main purpose in -calling attention -to this is to point out that the Governor in Council are taking to themselves a very, very broad power. I do not question that it is a good one; I am quite satisfied -that it is all intended for a good end, but I would ask my hon. friend if he thinks it wise to give power to the Governor in Council to set aside absolutely the Indian Act?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the clause has the scope the hon. member fears. The

negativing of the Indian Act applies -only to the extent of not requiring surrenders from the Indian tribes themselves. Clause 3 reads -as follows:
For the purpose of adjusting, readjusting or confirming the reductions or cut-offs from reserves in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, the Governor in Council may order such reductions or cut-offs to be effected without surrenders of the same by the Indians, notwithstanding any provisions of the Indian Act to the contrary.
It is only to that extent that the provisions of the Indian Act are affected at all. We can only negative the Indian Act to the extent that it always required surrenders. The hon. member will see that surrenders by the Indians -are essential before the Indians are substantially affected, or before they can be removed from their reserves, but if surrenders by the Indians are to be required in the case of every little cut-off that is essential here and there, the whole object of the negotiations may be frustrated by the -caprice of one tribe. It is only to that extent that the Indian * Act is affected, not generally at all. Further than that, we only ask power to effect a settlement in accordance with the terms and principles set up, and modified by the negotiations. I-t will he our purpose that the modifications will be just as slight as possible. We are prepared to accept the report now; we do not want to modify it at all; -so from our point of view the modifications will be as slight as possible. 1 do not contend or think that the Act would give us power to expend money. We would have -to come to Parliament in the case of any readjustment involving the passing of money. I do not think there is any money to pass at all, except in this way, that -when a certain cut-off from a reserve is sold, in pursuance of -the recommendations of the report, half the proceeds from the sale will go to the province of British Columbia. That is -one of the terms of the report which is now before Parliament, an-d which we must abide -by if we accept that feature of the report, as we are prepared to do. The money must come, of course, before it is -paid out. -
-Mr. McIvENZIE:	I understand that the
land is now held by the Dominion Government in trust for the Indians, and that a reversionary interest is claimed by -the province of British Columbia. I have not been able to follow the machinery, but, of course, -somebody must be put in a position to give title to this land when it is sold. Does the province of British Columbia

agree to surrender their title to somebody who with the assistance of this Government will be in a position to give title to the purchaser? Has the minister arranged for the machinery by which title can be given to this land jwhen it is sold?


Arthur Meighen: There can be no difficulty about the title for the reason that section 13 of the Act -of Union, of July 20, 1871, provides that the province of British Columbia shall transfer to the Dominion out of its own domain reserves for the Indians. They have done so. Consequently, we assert, and with undoubted right in my judgment, that title is in the Dominion. They contend that we enjoy that title only as trustees for the Indians, and that if we sell, if the Indians move away, the proceeds are theirs. We hope to effect a settlement with them on that point. They can make no claim to title. We say the Indian can make no claim to title, that the title is ours. We will simply grant patent on the sale of any portion or *all of the reserve. Of course, the Indians themselves of British Columbia have for a very long time been setting up a claim to aboriginal title in that province, but we cannot dispose of that question in this Bill. The Dominion claims title freed entirely from aboriginal claims, and the Dominion will give patent to these lands when sold. Surely that would be just as good title as the Dominion has been giving for forty years for land in the railway 'belt and the Peace River District, for example.


Frank S. Cahill: About what is the acreage and value of the cut-offs?


Arthur Meighen: The total cut-offs amount to 47,058.49 acres. We have had two valuations, and according to one estimate, the total value is $1,522,704.72, and according to the other $1,247,912.72. The net increases of acreage are 87,291.17-a great deal more acreage than the cut-offs, but the value is only about one-quarter as much, namely, $444,838.80.
Mr. J. H. (SINCLAIR: The minister says that the province of British Columbia is claiming a reversionary interest in the proceeds of these land sales. Assuming that they are entitled to reversionary interest, will other provinces have the same rights in relation to Indian lands that are sold?
iytr. MEIGHEN: No. The grounds upon which the province of British Columbia bases its claim for reversionary interest do not exist in relation to the other provinces.
They arise by reason of the terms of section 13 of their Act of Union, and orders
passed.


Mr. FULTON:: Does the province claim a reversionary interest in the reserves of the railway belt?


Arthur Meighen: From memory, I think it does, but of that I am not very certain.


Frederick John Fulton: My recollection is that there is a distinction between the reserves in the railway belt and those outside on account of the transfer by the province under the terms of Union. I think the question has been raised, but I have never heard that it has been decided.


Arthur Meighen: It has never been decided, that is certain.


Frank S. Cahill: About what percentage of the Indians have consented to this transaction? Have any of them consented, or are they all opposed to parting with these lands?


Arthur Meighen: The Indians, as Indians, are wards of the Government. They have not been approached with a view to obtaining their assent to an adjustment of claims as between the Dominion and Provincial Governments. I do not think it makes much difference to them. We recognize our responsibility to take care of the Indians as wards wholly.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The wards have rights as well.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, we take care of all the rights of the Indians as wards; we recognize that duty. As to the matter of a reversionary interest in the Indian reserves, that is a claim of the province of British Columbia. In fact, it does not make much difference what stand any one takes, for it is a matter of the law on the rights of the Government and of the Indians.


Frank S. Cahill: The Indians must be interested in any change taking away from them 47,000 acres of land in one place and giving them instead 87,000 acres somewhere else. But is it not customary for the Government to get the consent of Indians before they ask them to leave any reserve? In this case, have they been consulted?


Arthur Meighen: They are not leaving
any reserves except in the case of Kitsilano. In that case they did surrender. Under the Indian Act we must always obtain surrenders before the Indians give up possession at all, or even the right to cut wood

upon reserves. But for the purpose of obtaining a settlement-in the finality, not affecting the Indian rights at all, because the Indians are undoubtedly getting every thing that is coming to them-it is absolutely essential that we be able to take proper action and consequently we ask for power to do so without the necessity of sur-' render. If the necessity of surrender were interposed there would be no way of carrying this out at all, and I am at a loss to comprehend how the question is ever to be settled otherwise. The Kitsilano Reserve is occupied to-day by the Harbour Commissioners and not a dollar is paid for it for the simple reason that there is no place to pay it to. The Indians consequently have not the benefit of the money that is due them because it is not in our hands to give them. It is imperative that we should come to some settlement of this matter if the Indian is not to suffer, and this is the method we are desirous to adopt.


Frank S. Cahill: Does this apply only to
the reserves in Vancouver mentioned by the minister? This 47,000 acres is not all in one reserve?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Frank S. Cahill: Are other reserves in a
similar condition to that of the Kitsilano Reserve?


Arthur Meighen: The Kitsilano Reserve
has been surrendered because in that case the Indians have been moved up to another reserve, Saanich. In the other cases it is merely an adjustment of reserves. Lands which the Indians are not using are being taken over and they are given new lands.


Frank S. Cahill: Are they satisfied?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think their
consent has been asked for in this case. We doubtless will obtain it in every possible case, but if it is to be made a condition precedent, then there is no use in passing this legislation.


Frank S. Cahill: The transferring of Indians from one place to another might be an advantage to them in the opinion of the minister, while the Indians might regard it in altogether a different light. The question is, are they satisfied? It is not a question whether the Government is satisfied, but are the Indians themselves satisfied that the transfer should be made, in other cases than that in Vancouver?


Arthur Meighen: Generally speaking, I think they are. I do not know of any

specific objections to the action that has been taken. At any rate, I have not heard of any.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I take it that the Kitsilano lands were subject to the same laws regarding title as every other Indian reserve. Some years ago we heard a great deal in this House about the Kitsilano incident, and were informed, possibly correctly, that the habitations of the Indians were burnt, everything which they had in the shape of dwellings having been destroyed, with the result that they were forced off the land. I cannot recall what was done in the matter, but apparently, from the words of the minister, possession has been taken by the harbour commissioners. I do not suppose that the harbour commissioners forcibly dial edged the Indians and wrested the title from the trustees; I do not imagine that such a thing would be permitted in a civilized country. I should be .glad to know, however, how the commissioners got possession of the land and how they secured title without having paid for it. No doubt the harbour commissioners are a corporate body, and they are in the enjoyment of lands formerly occupied by the Indians, of whom the last we heard was that they 'had been virtually driven off by force. Perhaps the minister will explain how it is that the Government of Canada surrendered the title and gave patents to this corporation without any money having been paid. What arrangement has been .made in the matter?


Arthur Meighen: I can give from memory a fairly accurate account of the Kitsilano matter, from which the hon. member will see just how the harbour commissioners came to be in possession. First of all, let me say that I do not recollect any contention having been raised in this House that the Indians were not well treated. On the contrary, I do remember the contention being very strongly pressed that they were a little too well treated. They had too much money in their own hands, and treated themselves pretty well in consequence. The harbour commission felt that immediate possession was necessary, and the Government of British Columbia, in the interests of the city of Vancouver and the province generally, as well as harbour improvement there, were most anxious that surrender should be obtained. They obtained it, no doubt feeling that they had a certain authority in view of their claim to reversionary interest. At all events, they went about obtaining surren-

der and claimed to have paid the Indians between $200,000 and $3W,000 as part of the surrender value, and the Indians did actually surrender the land. At the same time the Royal 'Commission that was in operation made an interim report regarding the Kitsiiano reserve, recommending that that reserve be temporarily occupied by the harbour commission, and that the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia proceed to arbitrate the value of (the reserve and the value of the province's reversionary interest therein. The Government of Canada concurred in that interim report, and agreed, by means of correspondence with the Government of British Columbia, that whatever might be the finding of the arbitration as to the value of the province's reversionary interest, British Columbia should in no event receive less than $300,000, that being estimated as the amount to be paid by the province for the surrender, together with interest and expenses connected therewith. The subject matter then went to arbitration and the board of arbitration, found that the land was worth-if I remember correctly- $662,000. The Indian Department took exception to the finding, so did the Government of British Columbia; they claimed it was too low. An appeal was entered and went before Chief Justice Hunter of the province of British Columbia, who upset the arbitration proceedings not on the ground that the valuation was too low, or that there had been a failure to take account of relevant evidence, but rather on the ground that the province of British Columbia was not represented before the arbitration board. That simply threw us all hack to nowhere. We have no finding. Since that time we have been attempting to settle the matter. We had, as I thought, arrived at terms of settlement once but they were not final in the minds of both parties to the settlement in a way that we could usefully follow out. Therefore, we have not arrived at a settlement yet, and we are still in process of negotiation. The Government of British Columbia insists upon a much higher valuation of the property. The Government of Canada was willing, and is willing yet, that the province of British Columbia shall receive that sum of $300,000 out of the proceeds. I am now in communication with the attorney general of the province and I am in hopes that we will be able to arrive at some settlement of this outstanding dispute as a result. The Harbour Board has evidenced its .willingness to pay- I think a figure of-$750,000, that being
suggested by way of settlement. No settlement has yet been arrived at but immediately it is we are prepared to carry it out and to provide title and the Harbour Board stands ready at any time to pay the amount.


Mr. McMASTER:: Has the Harbour
Board still to pay something in addition to what it has already paid to the Indians?


Arthur Meighen: The Harbour Board has not paid anything. The province of British Columbia has paid the Indians between $200,000 and $300,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not quite sure
that we should allow this Act to go through without having something to say. It is new law to me, as I am sure it is to the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), that a person who claims a reversionary interest has the right to go in and take possession of the 'property. The reversionary interest goes to the person who really holds it after the person who had held it dies. The land was in possession of the Indians, it was occupied by the Indians and a trust was exercised by this Government. The only right that the Government of British Columbia had was a vague, statutory reversionary interest which had not received judicial interpretation. It strikes me as a very highhanded proceeding that the Government oi British Columbia should take possession of the property, deprive the Indians of the use of it and say:	"There is a sum of
money; take it and get out." It is a most extraordinary proceeding and one which this Government should not recognize at Nall. They should have dealt with this property from the beginning under the terms of the Act and they should have discouraged 'high-handed proceeding of that kind on the part of any one.
Bill reported.



THE POOD AND DRUGS ACT, 1920.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Newton W. Rowell (Minister of Health) Bill No. 27 respecting Food and Drugs was read the second time and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-definitions:
Andrew Ross McMaster: I note that in subsection (c) the word "domestic" is used to qualify the word "animal." The subsection reads:
(c) "drug" includes all medicines for internal or external use for man or for any domestic animal.
Sometimes wild animals are kept in captivity and are possibly treated with drugs.

I do not see why the -word "domestic" is put there. It limits the application of the Act. It does not fulfil any useful purpose. In a part of the country which is ably represented in this House foxes are raised for commercial purposes. I presume some of them occasionally get sick. If they are . domestic animals I suppose they will fall under this law. If they are not regarded as domestic animals, and I do not think they are, they would not fall under this law. It seems to me that there is no necessity for the word "domestic."


Mr. ROWELL:: The Act as it now stands is broadened by this Bill but I see no objection to striking out the word "domestic." The word "animal" will include all animals. I therefore beg to move that the word "domestic" be stricken out in the 16th line of clause 2.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: Paragraph (d) in the definition of food sets forth that it:
includes every article used for food or drink-
I want to call the minister's attention to that-
-by man, and every ingredient intended for mixing with the food or drink of man for any purpose whatever;
Now is whiskey a food, and are we committing ourselves to that definition? Because it is a scientific question as ,to whether whiskey is food or not, and we do not want to commit ourselves to any dangerous admission.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Whiskey is a poison.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to ask the minister if I am right in understanding that this Bill is brought down as a consolidation of the Acts already on the Statutes.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The existing Adulteration of Foods Act covers many matters in addition to the adulteration of food. It was passed many years ago and after several amendments the legislation was consolidated in 1906. Since then, it has been amended in many respects, and several new Acts have been passed dealing with different subject matters which are covered by the present Adulteration Act, and by reason of there being several Acts relating to the same subject matter there is confusion and difficulty in administration. In the present Bill we have eliminated all those matters that are provided for by other Acts and perhaps I might enumerate them so that the Committee will have these mat-

ters before them as we go through the Bill. The former Act in addition to dealing with foods and drugs proper, dealt with agricultural fertilizers. That class of products has since been .dealt with by a separate Act and therefore it passes out from the present measure. Proprietary and patent medicines were covered by an Act passed last session, therefore no provision is made in the present Bill for proprietary and patent medicines. Honey was also dealt with by the former Act, but hon. gentlemen will recall that a special Bill was put through the House the other evening in reference to that product. The former Act also dealt with maple products, but a separate Bill is before the House to-day covering that commodity. The old Act also dealt with commercial feeding stuffs and animal foods such as bran, shorts and middlings. Those are all likewise dealt with in a separate Bill now before the House. The present measure is therefore confined to foods and drugs. In that respect it simplifies the situation and will make the administration of the law much easier than it is at present. In addition, the existing law does not draw any clear . distinction between the adulteration and misbranding. Members of the Committee will see there is a clear distinction between putting some ingredient in a food -a deleterious substance which may be injurious to health,

and describing an article by some name other than it really is no doubt for the purpose of getting profit. But where the article is itself good for food and the only objection is that it is not accurately described, this Bill draws a clear distinction between the two things-adulterating, putting something in or taking something out which may be injurious, and misbranding; that is describing an article on the package or on the article itself in a way to deceive or mislead the public. The other changes I can perhaps more clearly indicate as we proceed with the Bill. The Act has been under administration for some twenty or thirty years and the proposed legislation embodies improvements which have been found necessary in actual operation by the department presided over by Dr. McGill. As we come to the different clauses I shall indicate as clearly as I can where the changes are made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will expedite discussion very much if the minister will deal with every new point in that way while the Bill is being considered because going through these different Acts is a very

laborious business. I would like to ask the minister one other question: a number of representations have been made by druggists from different parts of the country with respect to what they regard as somewhat drastic legislation in the matter of drugs. I presume these representations relate to the Opium and Drug Act and not to the present Bill.'


Newton Wesley Rowell: The representations relate to the Opium and Drug Act and I have intimated that that measure will not be proceeded with until after the iGovernment has heard the representations which those who will be affected by the legislation wish to make in regard to it.
On paragraph (e)-" inspector "


Newton Wesley Rowell: I move to amend para-grah (e) by striking out the words " appointed by His Majesty " and substituting therefor the words " duly appointed by or on behalf of the Dominion Government
This is a suggestion made by the Department of Justice for the improvement of the paragraph as it now stands. In its present form the paragraph reads:
"inspector" means any person, appointed by His Majesty or by a municipality for the purpose of carrying- out the provisions of this Act.


William Stevens Fielding: Does the language used in the paragraph not always imply His Majesty?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I should have thought myself the amendment was not necessary, but in going over the Bill the Department of Justice suggested to me that it might be made.


William Stevens Fielding: "By the Dominion Government" is a very unusual expression in an Act. However, we all know what it means and that is perhaps the important feature of any legislation. The whole theory of the Government is that all appointments emanate from His Majesty.


Mr. BELAND:: We are now a nation.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Newton Wesley Rowell: As I have already said
I approved of the clause in its present-form thinking it was suitable for the purpose designed, but the Department of Justice, in finally passing upon it, suggested the modification in question. I think perhaps "the Government of Canada" is preferable to "the Dominion Government." I would therefore suggest that we change the wording to read "appointed by or on behalf of the Government of Canada,''


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is the minister giving power to a municipality to make an appointment of this kind?


Newton Wesley Rowell: -We do not give municipalities such power; they appoint their own inspectors. A municipality has the power to appoint inspectors to deal with laws relating to that municipality.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I point out before we get away from this 'paragraph that as the minister proposes to amend it the inspection must be made by an inspector appointed either by the Dominion Government or by a municipality? But if there are inspectors appointed by the province the term "inspector" would not cover such provincial inspection. Perhaps that is the intention; I merely draw attention to that point as it has occurred to me.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Just before I answer my hon. friend, I inadvertently misinformed my hon. friend from Cape Breton. Section 11 of the Act deals with inspectors appointed by councils. It provides:
The Council of any city, town, county or village or other municipality may appoint one or more inspectors of food or drugs, etc.
These appointments are therefore expressly provided for.


Mr. PEDLOW:: Would the minister explain who is to make these appointments? The paragraph says:
"Inspector" means any person appointed by or on behalf of, etc.
Who will make the appointment on behalf of the iGovernment if the Government do not make the appointment themselves?


Newton Wesley Rowell: All these appointments
are made by the -Civil Service Commission under the existing law.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I should think that
the words " by His Majesty or by a municipality " might be left out and the clause .made to read:
" Inspector " means any person duly appointed for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have no objection to
the change; it seems to cover exactly the same ground. I move an amendment to that effect.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
i On section 4-drug, when deemed to be adulterated:
[Stage Direction]
1 Mr. ROWELL:	The present Act refers
to a specific edition of the pharmacopoeia; which is now out of date. In this Bill the reference is to the latest edition of the British or of any foreign pharmacopoeia. Then subsection 2 provides that if it is not specified that the drug is to be judged by some other standard, the British Pharmacopoeia shall be the standard by which the drug shall be tested and with which it must comply-
Mr. FOURNIER:: What have we to do
with any foreign pharmacopoeia?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have very substantial importations' of drugs from France, and we recognize the French Pharmacopoeia.
I Mr. FOURNIER: The codex.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Well, it is the standard
which the French have fixed for testing the purity of their drugs, and that standard is recognized here.
, Section agreed to.
On section 5-food, when deemed to be misbranded:	,
-	Mr. NESBITT: Paragraph (f) of section 5 says:
If in package form, sealed by the manufacturer or producer, and bearing his name and address, the contents of each package are not conspicuously and correctly stated in terms of weight, measure or number, upon the outside of the package.
-	I have a letter which draws my attention to the fact that many packages of perfectly pure foods which will not be sold within the year do not comply with this provision, and would be deemed to be misbranded. What has the minister to say about that?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I intend before the Bill
leaves the committee to move an amendment in this connection. I have not yet decided the exact form in which to submit it, but it will provide either that the Act shall come into force on proclamation, or, as was done in the case of the Patent Medicine Act of last session, that the Governor in Council may make regulations governing the disposal of existing stocks. There is no intention to confiscate property which was legitimately acquired under the existing law.
, Paragraph (a) of this section is substantially the same as the provision of the present law; it formed part of the adulteration clause. These words have been added: " and if it is not clearly and explicitly described as an imitation." Hon. members

will see the reason for that provision; if it is explicitly described as an imitation, then it is not misbranded. Paragraph (b) is a new clause. Paragraph (c) is also new: " If it is sold or offered for sale by a name which belongs to another article."
i Mr. FIELDING:	Is that a workable
clause? In the case of an article protected by trade mark there would be no difficulty. But suppose two articles of the same nature, bearing the same name but coming from different sources, are offered for sale, which one is the offender, neither being protected by trade mark? Two different concerns might easily produce substantially the same article. No doubt these things have all been carefully considered by the officials of the department. I desire to do no more than call attention to them.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think that the subsection is not intended to cover the specific point my hon. friend has in mind, though 1 can quite see the difficulty which might follow if it did deal with a case of that kind. It is intended to deal with the selling of an article under a name different from the real name of the article-in other words, an article which is misbranded.
Mr. FIELDING):	The question is, to
which of the two in the case I mentioned does tips provision apply?


Mr. NESBITT:: This provision goes even further than my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) suggests. It says:	" If it is sold
or offered for sale by a name which belongs to another article." The name might belong to another article not at all similar to the article sold.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I should draw the attention of my hon. friends to the provisions of clause 14 which has a direct bearing on this. Clause 14 provides that:
The Governor in Council shall have power to make regulations,-
(a) prescribing standards of quality for and fixing the limits of variabilities permissible in any article of food or drug the standard of which is not otherwise prescribed by this Act;
(5) requiring a label to be attached, in such manner as he may direct, tq any article of food or drug, and prescribing what the colour, size and contents of such label shall be; '
(c) prescribing, in the case of foods in packages, sold at retail in such packages, what the shape and size of such package shall be, and of what material it shall be made.
I think perhaps sub-clause (a) might be made clearer. I understand from the officers of the department that in their view sub-clause (a) covers the matter:

Prescribing standards for and fixing the limits of variabilities permissible in any article of food.
The word "food" would cover the matter. This clause had better stand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If sub-clause (c) Of clause 5 were made to read:
If it is sold or offered for sale by the name that belongs to It.
That would cover it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That would appear to
cover it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Before we pass from this clause, might I point out to the minister the possibility of confusion, and, I am afraid, trouble with regard to subclause (b) which reads:
If It is stated to be the product of a place or a country of which it is not truly a product.
There are in commerce a good many names which have acquired a secondary meaning. For instance, there is Belfast Ginger Ale. I am afraid that some zealous inspector, duly appointed, might possibly think that under sub-clause (b) he would have the right to proceed against some manufacturer who was manufacturing Belfast Ginger Ale. There is a danger in that clause, and I should like to hear what the minister has to say about it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: This clause is intended to meet cases where a certain foreign product has a well known character and reputation in the market and is bought by reason of that. It is not in the public interest, nor in the interest' of people who buy, that other products which are not made in that country and have not the quality, should be sold under that name. For instance, I might mention Java coffee and other commodities.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Would India curry
powder have to be made in India?
Mr. ROWEfLL: I am not familiar with that particular commodity. If a well known brand of powder of that character is made in India and known in our market, then the product of a similar kind made in Canada should not be sold under the name "India," because that would lead people to believe they were getting the product produced in India.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Would Washington coffee have to be made in Washington and Paris Green in Paris?


Mr. BIEL  AMD@: And what about Hamburg steak?


Frank S. Cahill: Would it be possible under sub-clause (a) to sell oleomargarine as a substitute for butter?


Mr.   HOWELL@: Sub-clause (a) does not prohibit the sale of oleomargarine if it be described as what it really is.


Frank S. Cahill: If it were described as imitation butter, would it be possible to sell it?


Mr. OROTHERS:: I think some alteration should be made in sub-clause (e) of clause 5, which reads:
If false or exaggerated claims are made for it upon the label or otherwise.
In trade what is an exaggerated claim? Supposing for instance, a man is selling soda biscuits, and on the label he has printed: "The biscuits contained in this package are superior in quality to those manufactured by any other firm in Canada." Literally that might be untrue, but the courts of this country regularly recognize what is known as puffing, and they distinguish between puffing and a false statement. For instance, a man has a perfect right under the law to say: "The biscuits contained in this package are the best manufactured in Canada." A man has also a perfect right to say: "That is the best piano manufactured in Canada," although it may be a very inferior piano. That is regarded by the courts as simply puffing, and every man who sells anything has a right under the law to make a general statement of that kind as distinguished from a mis-statement of a fact. If a man says: "The biscuits contained in this package are made from number one hard Manitoba wheat and that was not the case, that is a definite, false statement and is contrary to general law. But in a general sense a man has a perfect right to say that such and such is the best material of the kind manufactured, although that may not be actually true. Under this sub-clause, if it is left as it stands, who is going to determine whether the vendor has exaggerated the qualities of a particular article or not? 1 think this should be either stricken out altogether or modified to a matter of actual fact capable of being proved, and not a matter of opinion.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The party to determine
the matter would be the magistrate before whom the ease came for adjudication, but I appreciate the difficulty of using such a word as "exaggerated." The department has encountered difficulties in enforcing the

law, and the officers of the department were very anxious to have something to enable them to reach parties who were real offenders. On the other hand, one can conceive the difficulty that my hon. friend has pointed out, of puffing, which is perhaps not a desirable thing but which is very common, being construed as coming within the provisions of the law. It may be that we go far enough at present if we simply provide:
If false claims are made for it upon the label or otherwise.
I am quite willing to strike out the words "or exaggerated," and try out the provision in the meantime simply on the basis of false claims.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is the minister going to strike out subclause (c)?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I should like to let subclause (c) stand in order to discuss with the officers of the department just what effect the change might have. At present I consider the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition would cover the matter.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: If the words "of fact" were inserted after the word "claims" in clause (e), there would be no question about the matter being one of opinion.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Sub-clause (a) seems to be contradictory. It does not seem to be advisable to permit any article being sold as something other than what it really is, and sub-clause (a) allows you to do that. Why should we allow a man to sell an article that is an imitation? In the first place, the word " imitation" implies that some man is trying to sell something under a guise or a camouflage, if he sells it as an imitation. Why should we countenance that at all? For instance, a man might put on a package of oleomargarine the words " pure creamery butter," and then in very small letters underneath "but really oleomargarine." That would be a perfectly legitimate thing to do. When a man buys a railway ticket a great number of conditions are printed on the back, but how many men read those conditions, or the conditions of a fire insurance policy? Under this clause it would seem to me that oleomargarine could be sold as pure butter simply by putting the word "oleomargarine" in small type underneath. Why should we allow anybody to sell an imitation, even in the case of a necessary article of food? .
Section stands.
On section 6-compounds, mixtures, etc., to be labelled as such, and not to be marked "pure," "genuine," etc.:


Newton Wesley Rowell: Let me illustrate the kind of case this clause is designed to meet. An article, take mustard, for instance, may be put on the market and may be quite wholesome but not pure mustard. The mustard may have a certain amount of flour mixed with it. Similarly with many other commodities that are sold on the market. We are providing that if the word " pure " or " genuine " is used, it must be the genuine article. If they wish to sell an article that is not wholly composed of the substances described on the label, they must not use the words " pure " or " genuine."- This is simply to prevent the public from being misled by the use of these words.


Mr. DENIS:: What objection would there be to having the manufacturers indicate on . the label the composition' of the article? A druggist never objects to writing the prescription on the label of a bottle of medicine, if requested, but when it comes to food we allow any one to sell any kind of food under a false name. I should like to know if there is any real objection to having my suggestion carried out? .


Newton Wesley Rowell: My_ hon. friend will see that there would be serious objection to it in the case, for instance, of commodities which are good articles of food but the composition of which is a frade secret. If there is nothing misleading about the name, there seems to be no necessity for stating the ingredients on the label. My hon. friend is mistaken in thinking that the druggists are required to write the prescription on the label.


Henri Sévérin Béland: He had in mind proprietary medicines.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Where there is no trade
secret to be given away, I do not see why the public should not be told what the ingredients are.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr. Middlebro) will find his criticism respecting the use in large type of the words "pure creamery butter " and in smaller type the word " oleomargarine " covered, I think, by this clause, which provides that:
Every article of food which is a compound, mixture, imitation or substitute shall be plainly and correctly labelled as such; and the words " pure " or " genuine " or words equivalent to these terms, shall not be used on the labels or in connection with such articles, and such articles shall be so packed, marked or labelled as not to be likely to deceive any person with respect to their true nature.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 7-samples may be obtained:
Newton Wesley Rowell: Subsection (1) is substantially the existing law. Subsections (2) and (3) are important, and I think should be brought to the attention of the committee. Subsection (2) is rendered necessary by reason of the fact that in cases where an inspector has no reasonable doubt about a certain article being adulterated food, in order to justify his taking action he must take a sample and have it analyzed, and under the law as it now stands it is very doubtful if he has a right to require that the bulk shall be detained until that analysis has been made. As a matter of practice, the department is detaining the bulk until.the analysis can be made, but we are advised by our officers that it is desirable that that right should be made perfectly clear, so that in the meantime the adulterated food cannot get out of reach of the department.
Subsection (3) is intended to protect us against the importation of adulterated food. I am advised that in the past there have been many cases where adulterated foods which should not be exposed for -ale in this country have, been imported from cut-side. Hon. members will see that the right to examine is limited. The inspector must have the direct authority of the minister before he can examine customs entries and detain food until an analysis can be made. The officials of the department say that both these provisions are very important for the efficient administration of the law and for the protection of the public.


William Stevens Fielding: As the minister has
explained, provision is made that an embargo may be laid on imports until an analysis can be made. Then the clause goes on to provide that if " the food or drug is adulterated or misbranded, such food or drug shall not be admitted into Canada for use as a food or drug." For what other purposes than as a food or drug would it be admitted?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There are a number of
uses to which an article may properly be put, and some cases have come up within the past few months in the administration of the department. Albumen of egg, which is not suitable for human food, may be used for tanning purposes, and there are certain manufacturing processes in which commodities such as this may be used. I know that within the past five or six months a large quantity of some article imported into Canada for food was seized by the department. It would cleo''1" have been in-61
jurious to health to have that article marketed a;S food, but it was quite useful in some manufacturing business and we therefore permitted its employment for that purpose.


William Stevens Fielding: That seems reasonable, but has the minister the machinery by which he can guarantee that an article, having been once imported as food, may be used only for a manufacturing purpose?


Newton Wesley Rowell: In the case I have in
mind we took bonds from responsible parties before releasing the article. Whether or not we had the authority to do it we detained the article, a large quantity of which had been imported. The analyst having decided that it was unfit for food, we deemed it wise, instead of detroying the article, to take bonds frbm responsible parties guaranteeing that it would not be used for any other than specified purposes.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite agfee that an
article which may be unfit for food may serve a very useful manufacturing purpose, but I think the minister should have some machinery that will insure the safety of the public. Unless there is adequate machinery you may find that an article which is condemned as food, but which is permitted to be used for mechanical purposes, may eventually find its way back to the1 shop and be exposed for sale as human food.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think we have the
power under the section regarding regulations. If not, I shall bear in mind the hon. member's suggestion.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is a common practice when goods which are imported for food are found to be unfit for that purpose to deem them as being illegally in the country and to confiscate them. There does not seem to be any ppwer of confiscation here. Suppose a man who imported goods that were found to be unfit should refuse to give such a bond as the minister has spoken of, what would be done in the matter?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is a power of forfeiture under section twelve.


William Stevens Fielding: But what about the
power to authorize the use of goods for other than food purposes?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Under sections fourteen and fifteen there is a general authority to make regulations, and subsection "D" of section fifteen provides "for carrying out the provisions of this Act." When we come to that subsection, which is very .broad, I shall consider the point raised by my hon.



friend, if there is found to be any necessity for modification.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Subsection "D" of section fifteen does not help the minister in making regulations. There must be a previous provision in regard to the disposal of condemned goods.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Section 12 provides for
this.
12. (1) Whenever any article of food or any drug is reported hy a Dominion analyst as being adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this Act, the department may order such article and all other articles of the same description which were in the same place at the time the article analysed was obtained to be seized by an inspector and detained by him until an analysis of a sample of the whole is made.
(2) If the Dominion analyst reports to the department that the whole or any part of such articles of food or drugs as have been submitted for analysis by the aforesaid inspector is adulterated or misbranded, the Minister may declare such articles, or so much thereof as the Dominion analyst reports to be adulterated or misbranded, to be forfeited to the Crown, and they shall be forfeited accordingly, and may be disposed of as the minister directs.


William Stevens Fielding: They are disposed of
after forfeiture.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, as the minister may direct. I shall keep my hon. friend's point in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section eight-Inspector has to deal with samples.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This section provides
for court proceedings and enacts that the certificate of the analyst shall be received as evidence in any proceedings taken against any person in pursuance of this Acf. This might be a good way for an officer to get in evidence, but I need hardly remind my hon. friend that evidence of this nature is exceedingly unpopular. The best way to prove a case is the ordinary old-fashioned way of- producing iwitnesses and having the whole matter aired before the court.


Newton Wesley Rowell: In that respect the law is not materially changed, except that the certificate may be the certificate of a " Dominion Analyst " instead of the " Chief Analyst." My hon. friend will see that this is a case where the government official has no object whatever other than to get at the actual contents of the article examined or analysed. If he makes an examination and finds the article adulterated his certificate is put in as evidence in the 
case. Having regard to the objects for which the legislation is being enacted, I think it is very desirable that provision should be made to make the enforcement of the law expeditious and convenient. Suppose that the defendant in a case was in a position to show that a mistake had been made, there would be no object in the department prosecuting. All they wish to do is to get at the facts. Section 9 also provides that:
(1)	If the person who supplied the article respecting which the certificate referred to in the last preceding section is given, deems himself aggrieved thereby, he may within ten days of the receipt of the copy of such certificate furnished to him, notify the minister in writing that he intends to present evidence in his own behalf to controvert the certificate of the Dominion analyst, stating in full the nature of such evidence. In the absence of such notice the certificate of the analyst shall be taken as final.
He is not precluded from giving evidence but he must give notice beforehand to enable the department to meet the case. Then sub-section 2 of section 9 provides:
(2)	Should the evidence submitted by the person above referred to be such as in the opinion of the Chief Dominion Analyst to justify further investigation, the Chief Dominion Analyst may cause the second part of the sample submitted to the Department, as provided in section eight, to be analysed to his satisfaction, and a certificate of such analysis signed by the Chief Dominion- Analyst shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts therein set out.
The sample is taken away, it is divided ' into three parts and it is only the analysis of the actual sample taken that can be used as the basis of prosecution. Otherwise the man charged might substitute something else and say that that was the article he had at the time the seizure was made. I think ample protection is given by section 9 to meet the case mentioned. I should point out that sections 8^ and 9 are substantially the present law with two exceptions. Section 8, sub-section 4 provides, that:
A copy of such certificate shall be furnished by the department to the person from whom the sample was procured within six months of the time of procuring the sample.
There was no provision in the Act as it stood that the certificate should be furnished within any definite time and it is only reasonable that a man from whose goods a sample is taken for analysis should have the certificate furnished within some fixed time. Provision is also made that the certificate of the Dominion analyst may be taken in the first instance rather than the

certificate of the chief Dominion analyst. It would be quite impossible for the chief analyst to personally analyse all the samples taken.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Why should a man have to wait for six months to get that certificate.


Newton Wesley Rowell: He does not have to wait; it is furnished in due time, or as soon as it is available. This is simply a limitation upon the existing law.


William Stevens Fielding: Has there not been
found a difficulty in that samples are taken say, from a grocer's shop? He does not make the goods at all; he buys them in good faith and sells them in good faith. Is it the intention to proceed to examine samples of the product of the manufacturer, the source from which the goods come? It does seem a hardship that the grocer who buys an article in all good faith, believing he is getting the correct thing, upon it being discovered that there is some adulteration, must be pilloried before the public through no fault of his own. It may be that there is no other way of getting at it, but I have known cases in which there has been very great hardship.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I appreciate the point raised by the hon. gentleman and in order to get over the difficulty provision is made to reach the manufacturer and as far as possible to take samples from him. But it has been found in many cases that the only way to reach the trouble has been to go into a store, actually buy an article and take a sample. Provision is made in section 17 for the case which my hon. friend has mentioned where a man might plead want of knowledge and thereby escape the consequences of his act.


William Stevens Fielding: He escapes the consequences in the way of a penalty in the courts but in the meantime a bulletin has been issued by the department which practically blacklists the grocer who has sold that article. It is true the public do not generally see these bulletins; it is a pity they do not in some cases. I know of a ease where a gross injustice has been done to reputable merchants who have been pilloried in the bulletins of the department. I am not complaining of the department for doing this; I have no doubt they are only carrying out their duty, but it seems to me a very great hardship.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I absolutely agree with
what has been said by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). 614
Could not the Act be so framed that if an article were seized in a retail store, the manufacturer of the article would be responsible? You might force a manufacturer under this Bill to put his name on the article so that you would know exactly who made it and you could come back at him. I have known of instances where the retail man was just as innocent as a baby in the matter. He did not know that the article that he had sold was not what it was represented to be but still his name went forth to the public. This may hurt a man's business a great deal.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I may say in answer to both my hon. friends that while I believe in the past the course they have indicated was pursued, it is not now being pursued. No names are published in any bulletin until after a conviction is actually registered. The case that my hon. friends have mentioned would not arise in so far as publication in the bulletin is concerned.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is the manufacturer not the man who is guilty and is he not the man who should be punished if there is any deception or wrongdoing?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will be glad to discuss the point when we come to section 17, which deals particularly with the matter.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If section 8 passes, section 17 will be ineffective. I sympathise very strongly with what has been said by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). After all the man who produces the article, puts it in the can and sells it, is the man who knows what the contents of the receptacle are and he is altogether responsible to the public for what he puts up. Within the last few days an action for damages has been tried in one of the provinces. The complainant passed the retailer altogether and brought the action direct against the man who manufactured the goods. This is not a new principle at all as. it has been upheld both in England and in the United States. That being the case I should think it would be worthy of consideration by the minister as to whether or not he should always go after the manufacturer, and provide the means of reaching him.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The change proposed in line 7 of section 8 is merely a verbal one. The reference there given should be to section 16 instead of section 17.
'On section 10-analysis may be obtained of any sample:

iMr. MeKENZIE: What is really meant by " Dominion analyst '? In my own province the certificate of an analyst in a prosecution under the Temperance Act is recognized as evidence, hut I think a certain qualification must toe provided for before the .certificate of the analyst is accepted. It wouild not do for everybody to call themselves analysts without being able to demonstrate that they possess the necessary qualifications; there ought to be some definition as to what constitutes an analyst, and how the functionary comes to be possessed of the title.


Newton Wesley Rowell: iMy hon. friend will see that is provided for in subclause (to) of section 2, the definition clause, which says:
"Dominion analyst" means any analyst appointed for the purposes of this Act and includes the Chief Dominion Analyst and the Assistant Chief Dominion Analyst.
"Dominion analyst" only applies to an analyst appointed under the provisions of the Bill.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would like to call the attention of the Chairman to the fact that there is not a quorum of the committee at the present time.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will
realize that if he insists upon his objection it means reporting the fact to the Speaker.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would like to draw the attention of my hon friend (Mr. Pedlow) to the fact that there is a quorum present.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There are twenty members present, including the Chairman.
* Mr. PEDLOW: I admit that it is very desirable we should proceed with the business of the House, but it is also desirable that there should be an adequate attendance of members, and that those hon. gentlemen should take an intelligent interest in the discussion that is going on. I must insist that there be a quorum in carrying on the business of the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: If the hon. gentleman insists, it will be the duty of the Chairman to report to the 'Speaker the point which has just been raised. I will therefore ask the Clerk to make a count of the members present.


William Stevens Fielding: I do hope any hon. friend (Mr. Pedlow) will not press the point. After all this is a Bill of a rather formal and routine character, and I do not think there is any real objection to it. I think it would be a pity, and very
 >
undesirable, to have it announced to the public that the 'House was counted out.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: In addition to that, the procedure will simply use up so much of our working time and nothing will be gained by it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There was a quorum when my hon. friend made his abjection.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I will not press the point.
I made it for the purpose of insisting upon a better attendance of hon. gentlemen than we now have.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There are more than twenty members present now.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall clause 10 carry?
Mr. MeKENZIE: Just a moment. I was drawing the minister's attention to the question of the qualification of an analyst. It is quite true that the Bill contains a definition of an analyst, but what I maintain is that we should be assured that these analysts have some standard qualifications, that they have taken a degree in some college or are recognized as holding some certificate, and that they are not simply appointees of the Government.


Newton Wesley Rowell: In answer to my hon. friend I would say that the qualifications for appointment to a position of this kind are determined under the classification of the Civil Service. A candidate for the position of analyst is required to have suitable educational qualifications; he must have graduated from a university or school and possess attainments qualifying him for the position. I have not got the prescribed qualifications under my hand at present, but I shall be glad to furnish my hon. friend with that information.
Mr. MeKENZIE: Must we go to the Civil Service Commission to get a definition of the qualifications of an analyst?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The qualifications are set forth in the classification submitted to the House at the last session of Parliament. When a position is vacant and the Civil Service Commission advertises, the particular qualifications required are specified in detail.
Mr. MeKENZIE: Under the provisions of the odd Civil Service Act a man could be appointed to a technical position in the Government service without the consent of the Civil Service Commission, but it may be otherwise now. If it is possible for a man without the necessary technical know-

ledge to be brought into the department without going through the hands of the Civil Service Commission it would he very desirable to have a definition in the Bill of what constitutes an analyst. I would not raise the point were it not for the fact that the finding of an analyst is made evidence in a court of law. The old-fashioned way of having the witness go on a stand has been done away with, and a certificate is now required. Therefore we have the right to know in some way the educational attainments of the man who makes that certificate.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I shall be very glad, before the Bill leaves Committee, to give my hon. friend the information he desires. I may tell him, however, that the applicant for such a position must be a Master or Bachelor of Science, or a graduate in Arts, who has taken a special course in chemistry. He must he in every way well qualified for the post.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Do I understand
from clause 10 that in the event of any one believing that some sample of food has been adulterated, it is necessary for them to enclose a fee in order to have that sample analysed?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That provision is in the .existing law. No change is being made in the law in that respect.


Donald Sutherland: Surely it should not be necessary, having regard to all the facilities at the disposal of the department, for a private person to take proceedings against a vendor for violation of the provisions of this Act. I see no good purpose in compelling any one to pay for an analysis and then to enter proceedings.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is true that the department exists for the purpose of enforcing the law and that all complaints made to the department are investigated in due course and prosecutions instituted wherever necessary. But in addition to that, this provision would enable a man who was not satisfied with the action taken by the department to proceed as outlined. It is simply carrying forward into the present Act a provision of the old Act.


Donald Sutherland: If a man was strongly of the opinion that the department was lax, it would be necessary for him to pay to" an analysis of the sample by the department.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is the law as it stands to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-inspectors appointed by councils:
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Sections 10 and 11 provide that the offender can be prosecuted as well as the manufacturer, and that raises the question that was brought up by my hon friend (Mr. Fielding).


Newton Wesley Rowell: As a matter of practical administration I am afraid that we cannot consent to limit the prosecution solely to the manufacturer. The department in every case endeavours to reach the parties primarily responsible. But it is a matter of great importance that adulterated food or drugs which are dangerous to the public health should not be sold; therefore it has been considered necessary that the department should have the right to proceed directly against the parties who sell, leaving it to them to establish their innocence.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The minister has stated that the Civil Service Commission would appoint inspectors provided for by paragraph (e) of section 2; but under section 11 the council of any city, town, county or village or other municipality may appoint inspectors. Is there not a conflict of authority here?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Dominion inspectors will be appointed by the Civil Service Commission. There is also the right on the part of local municipalities to appoint local inspectors. In fact, it is necessary that the principal municipalities at least should do so, otherwise we should have to have a corps of Dominion inspectors wtih a consequent unfair charge against the Federal exchequer. The local municipalities must take an interest in the enforcement of this law; therefore every encouragement is given to them to appoint their own inspectors, to initiate their own prosecutions and to get the benefit of the fines. The inspector has no right to give the certificate. He goes about, inspects and makes seizures, but his functions are quite different from that of the analyst.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Will the local inspectors have the same duties as the Dominion inspectors?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The local inspectors can only exercise the authority that is expressly given them. They may take the sample, but they must submit it to the Dominion analyst, and on the basis of the decision of the Dominion analyst as to the quality of the product a prosecution may be instituted.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think it inadvisable to have in a Federal Act a statement which makes it appear that this Parliament is giving to a municipality the right to do such and such a thing. Consequently, it seems to me that the phrase, "The council of any city, town, county or village or other municipality may appoint," and so on, is unfortunate. I do not challenge the object which the clause seeks to attain, but it seems to me that it might better be worded: "Inspectors appointed by the council of any city, town, county or village," ;.nd so on. I would not in a Federal Act grant the right to municipal councils to do such and such a thing. This Parliament has no right to direct municipal councils to do or not to do such and such things, because municipal councils derive their power, not from the Dominion, but from the provinces.
Mr. BO WE'LL: I appreciate the point raised by my hon. friend. But this section has been in the law for over thirty years; we are only re-enacting what has been in the statute for a very long time. Frankly, when the Bill first came up, I was under the impression that all we were doing was recognizing the authority of inspectors appointed by the municipalities, but the Act itself goes further. I do not think any difficulty can arise from this. We are giving these inspectors, after they are appointed by the municipalities, certain powers. It is our function to give them those powers,


Andrew Ross McMaster: Once they are appointed, I agree with the minister that it is quite right for us to give them the powers, but the legislation goes further than that; it says in so many words: " The council of any city, town or village may appoint." I say that we have no right to say to a municipal council: " You may appoint an inspector." The only power that has the right to say that is the power vested in the province. I am inclined to think the minister will agree with me on that constitutional point.


Mr. BO WELL:: I think under certain conditions we have power over municipalities just as we have power over individuals; but I do not think it is necessary to enter into a discussion of that constitutional question at present. The fact is that this has been in the law for thirty years, and the Department of Justice has approved this legislation in its present form. Therefore, I should say we are quite safe in leaving it as it is in that respect.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Under this measure will a municipal council have power to dismiss an officer?


Mr. BOWELL:: These officers are wholly under the control of the municipalities. I have no hesitation in saying that had I drafted the law originally I should have provided that where the municipalities appointed these officials, these officials should have certain powers. But I do not think any harm can come from leaving this as it is.


William Stevens Fielding: 
Mackenzie Bowell: This is not exactly the form in the original Act, but the difference is not in the point which my hon. friend has mentioned. The Act as it originally stood reads:
Such analyst shall, upon tender of the fees fixed for the analysis of such class of articles by the Governor In Council, forthwith analyse the same and give the inspector a certificate of the said analysis.
I should think a little more than tendering is required; payment is what is required.


William Stevens Fielding: Payment by the party applying. There is here almost the implication that the analyst has to make the payment. The fact, however, that this has been the law for thirty years, is good authority.


Mackenzie Bowell: I should have thought
that the fact that this was on payment by the party applying was clearly implied from the clause, quite apart from its antiquity, and that it did not require its age to justify it. The clause reads:
Such Dominion Analyst shall, on payment of the prescribed fee.
That must be on payment of the fee for the analysis referred to in the preceding sub-clause, sub-clause (1) which says that the inspector may require a Dominion Analyst to analyse any samples of food or drugs procured by him. I have no objec-

tion to inserting the words " to him," if my hon. friend thinks that is necessary, hut I do not think it is necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-seizure.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is, the word " description " in the fifth line of sub-clause (1) a good word. The sub-clause reads:
All other articles of the same description.
Should not the sub-clause read:
All other articles of the same kind.


Newton Wesley Rowell: All other articles of the same character?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That would do.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have no objection to
substituting the word "character" for the word "description."
' Mr. McMASTER: I do not think that i* any improvement. I think the word ".description" keeps the matter closer to what is being seized. For instance, one sort of meat might be of the same character as another.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Articles might be of the same description p that is to say, the labels and all that sort of thing might be of the same description, and yet they would not he of the same'character at all. I absolutely* disagree with my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) when he says that the word "description" is better than the word "character."


Newton Wesley Rowell: I find that in the old
Act-and I confess I am not aware wby in drafting this Bill a change was made-the words are "the same kind and quality."


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The words "the same
kind" would suit me.


Newton Wesley Rowell: We had better adopt the description in the original Act. I am informed by the officers of the department that the reason for the change was in order to leave out the word "quality," because there might be difficulty arising therefrom. I move that the word "description" in the fifth line of sub-clause (1) of clause 12 be stricken out and the word "kind" substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agree'd to.
On section 13-reports of Chief Analyst.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the fifth
line of this clause would not the word
"thereon" be better than, the word "therein" in regard to misbranding?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, I should think it
would. That is probably a clerical error.
I move that the word "thereon" be substituted for the word "therein" in the fifth line of this clause.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 14-regulations by Governor in Council.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: I should like to draw the minister's attention to sub-clause (c). Those of us who are in business in this country have troubles enough without having any more thrown in our way. Why are such obstacles placed in the way of doing business? What is the sense of having the department say what size and what shape of packages food shall be put in? What difference does the shape or the size make or what material packages may be made of so long as they are not made of poisonous material? That is an unnecessary interference with trade, in my judgment, and might cause a great deal of expense to a manufacturer. He is the best judge of the most suitable size, because he has to cater to the trade. No man in the House of Commons, or in the department, would be as good a judge as to the size and shape of the package as the manufacturer, because it is his business to get the trade.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It has been found in the actual administration of the law that where an article of food put up in a certain sized package or container has acquired a high reputation on the market because of its character and quality, other manufacturers will put up a similar article, but of inferior quality, which they can afford to sell at a lower price, in substantially the same sized container or package, and the public in looking at the two is misled. The view of the department is that in such a case the inferior article should be sold in a different kind of package so that the public will not confuse it with the better known article of superior quality.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: This clause does not touch that at all. The whole Act provides against imitation, but this clause regulates the size of package that all commodities shall be put up in.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not think any
special legislation is necessary to cover cases of the kind mentioned, because a man could

bring an action for unfair competition or passing off an article as something else.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am not speaking oi
imitation. I say this clause gives power to prescribe the kind of package that every manufacturer shall put his stuff up in.


Newton Wesley Rowell: This is not a power which the minister is compelled to use. It is only power to deal by regulation with a situation where it is believed that such regulation is necessary. It is not contemplated that there should be general regulations governing all kinds of packages, but it is desired by the department that there should be power to deal with the class of cases such as I have indicated, which have already arisen in the administration of the law.


Mr. ROSS:: Does the minister mean that if a manufacturer puts up a certain article in a certain kind of package the department will have power to say that another manufacturer shall not put up a similar article in a similar package?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. A manufacturer
puts uip a certain article of a well-recognized standard or quality in a certain sized container, which becomes known to the public. When the article has become well-known on the market another manufacturer, knowing the reputation it has acquired, may produce a similar article of inferior quality which he can afford to sell at a lower price, and put it up in a container similar in general design and character to the other one, and the public are thereby misled. I am told that is the actual situation which sometimes arises in the administration of the law, and the sole object of the department is to take power to prevent the public from being misled into buying an article of inferior quality, thinking they are getting an article of better quality.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: But the whole Act provides against imitation. This is an interference with trade. Biscuit manufacturers, for instance, from one end of the country to the other put- up a three-pound" package oi biscuits. It is exactly the same sized package all over the country, but they do not pretend for a minute to imitate some other manufacturer. It seems to me utterly incomprehensible to suppose that people would be deceived by articles being put up in a similar package. These packages have to have their own labels on, and by this Act the manufacturer is required to say whether the article is pure or adulterated. I repeat, this clause is an absolute interference with trade.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think this
clause deals with quality, as suggested by the minister. His reasoning in the main is good, -but I think it would be stronger if he dealt mainly with the question of quantity. A lady, for instance, buys a certain article by the package; the package becomes a standard article. When you buy a package of this or that you do not make an analytical examination as to the weight. The package has a standard value, and as the minister states, an old established concern may have a reputation for its goods sold in that way, and some other manufacturer may put up another article-not of inferior quality, because I do not think that is touched on by this clause-in a similar package which he can afford to sell at a lower price, and that comes in competition with the old established article. I think in such a case this clause would have a very good effect. Where an article is well known and is sold by the package, without much analysis as to the weight, I think it is right and fair that nobody else should attempt to sell the same article in a similar sized package, and the Government should have the power to regulate the size of the package in which the article shall be sold. We regulate the weight of a barrel of flour. That is just as much an interference with trade, but we do it because the barrel is standardized and no one is allowed to sell, as a barrel, a less quantity than is prescribed. I think on the question of quantity rather than on quality the minister's argument is sound.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Might I point out to my hon. friend that we have already by this Act provided that the weight shall be put on the package so that the public shall not be deceived. Of course we regulate the weight of a bag of potatoes or a barrel of flour and many other things which are sold by the barrel or bag, but that is a different thing entirely. This clause deals with articles sold by the package.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I quite agree with my
hon. friend (Mr. Nesibtt). I think that paragraph (c) should be dropped entirely from the Bill. It is absolutely unnecessary. I speak from experience in matters of this kind. If a manufacturer has established a reputation for a certain article and another manufacturer comes along with an imitation in similar package, the first manufacturer has recourse against the other at law and can restrain him from interfering with his rights. This clause means that a manufacturer who produces a new article

must come to Ottawa for instructions from the department as to the size of the package in which that article shall be put up, the colour of the label, and all such minor details which he would arrange in his own office to suit his own convenience and to secure the success of his product on the market. I think the committee would be well advised to eliminate this section entirely.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would ask the minister to regard this clause exactly as it should be regarded. This is not paternal legislation; it is not even maternal legislation; it is, I think, grandmotherly legislation. It is absurd that a department of government should have the right to say to a manufacturer:	" You shall not put
up your product in a tin that will hold two pounds, but in one that will hold five pounds; you shall not put it up in a tin coloured red, but in one coloured blue or grey, or some neutral colour; and you shall make your label of such and such material." I would ask the minister seriously to realize that all this interferes with the principles of liberty which people should enjoy in carrying on their business in the way they should judge best so long as they do not interfere with the acquired rights of others. It is a well-known principle of law, with which the minister is no doubt much more familiar than I am, that restraint will be put upon the man who dishonestly endeavours to avail himself of the goodwill or reputation that attaches to the goods of a competitor, and we had better leave the well laid down principles of law to regulate this matter. I see no great objection to subsection " A " of the clause, but I would ask the minister to strike out subsections " B " and " C," for I cannot see that they serve any useful purpose. The explanation given by the minister just shows how unfortunate the exercise of the power in question may be. Let us suppose that there are two manufacturers making a breakfast food, and that the superior breakfast food is oatmeal, which has been put up in a certain package for many years. Some man comes forward with cream of wheat or some other fancy breakfast food and, according to the minister, if he puts it up in a package similar to that which has contained rolled oats he may be told by the department that he has no right to put up his product in this way because it is an inferior breakfast food. The public having been accustomed to buy rolled oats in a certain package, he must not attempt *
to put up his cream of wheat in the same way. Well, it seems to me that that is reducing legislation to an absurdity. People who realize that oatmeal is an excellent food will buy oatmeal and those who want cream of wheat should be allowed to buy this article, no matter in what package the manufacturer cares to put it up. If there is unfair competition, and an attempt is made by a manufacturer or merchant to pass off his goods as those of another, then the law will restrain him, and this is the principle which I think should apply in this matter. There is a tendency in legislation to try to meet with a special law every specific case that arises. I think this is a mistake. It cumbers our statutes, and justice between man and man is not attained by placing these meticulous enactments upon the statute book.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The illustration which
my hon. friend Ipas given emphasizes the importance of certain foodstuffs in which he is very much interested,


Andrew Ross McMaster: Merely as a consumer.


Newton Wesley Rowell: -his interest being no
doubt responsible for the vigour with which he discusses these questions; but it is entirely different from the illustration I gave to the House. I could not give a better illustration than that offered by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), and it is just to prevent frauds in such cases as he has mentioned, and others of a similar character, that the legislation is designed. I am quite prepared to let the clause stand if it can be modified in any way that will protect the public against being misled. There is no desire to hamper business, the sole object being to protect the public. I move that the section stand.
Section stands.
On section 15-regulations by minister:


William Stevens Fielding: The minister is taking large powers to himself. I agree that it is necessary that regulations should be made to carry out the purposes of the Act, but these regulations should be proposed by the minister and have the approval of the Governor in Council.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Probably it is wiser to
put it in that form, and I therefore move to substitute for the word " minister " the words " Governor in Council."


William Stevens Fielding: "The minister, with
the approval of the Governor in Council," would do.


George Green Foster: It comes to the same thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why not consolidate this with the. previous section?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am not sure that some of the details in connection with this section need be published in the Gazette. I prefer to leave the two sections separate. I move that " Governor in Council " be substituted for the word " minister " in the first line of section 15.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Andrew Ross McMaster: What interpretation
does the minister place upon these words : " or otherwise given assistance leading to conviction in the case in question "? If the minister proposes to give half the fine to a witness who testifies, I object to that, as an unfortunate provision. I can understand that the informer should get half the fine. That is an encouragement which is given to informers but which is offset by public disapproval of this brand of gentry. But persons who " otherwise have given assistance " may, under this clause, get half the fine. If that refers to the lawyer who might conduct the prosecution in such a case I would have no harsh words to say to the minister, but I should not like this provision to extend to witnesses, who should be indemnified and not rewarded.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will see
that this is to be covered by regulations which will define the conditions. Of course, it is not intended to give to a witness any compensation that would be improper, but it is necessary, in the adequate administration of the law, that advantage should be taken of information furnished, and where you give a portion of the fine it is an inducement in many cases for people to give information that may lead to prosecution under the Act. The information might come from more than one source. There might be different provisions in regard to the information furnished or the assistance given. That would all be covered by suitable regulations. I do not think there is any danger in that clause.


Andrew Ross McMaster: With the explanation of the minister before us I do not see any necessity for the words "or otherwise given assistance." The minister takes power with the consent of the Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing that a portion of the fine may go to the informer or to the person who has given information. I have no objection to that, but I cannot

see how any one else but the witness and the lawyers would give assistance to obtain a conviction.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have no objection to
limiting it to "any person who has given information leading to conviction in the case in question," striking out the words "or otherwise given assistance." I therefore beg to move to strike out the words "or otherwise given assistance."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have never come
across any criminal proceedings or law cases -like this. The minister can find abundant cases where half the fine goes to the informer, but I -never saw any legislation going farther than that. That in itself is going as far as it should. We do not want any more informers. I think that provision should be struck out altogether. The question has to be determined by the magistrate who tries the case. If the Act says that half the fines shall go to the informer, it must mean the man who lays the information. There is no difficulty about that, but there -may be three or four other people who come before the court -and say that they are the people who gave the information that led to the conviction. There are only two halves, and if the court says that half of the fine shall go to the informer there will be no half to go- to these other people. This sort of legislation is not very commendable, but when it says that half of the fine shall go to any person who gives information that leads to securing a conviction, it is going: to cause a great deal of trouble.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have already intimated that I shall be content to move that the words "or otherwise given assistance" shall be stricken out. They were put in for the reason that it was thought they would be of benefit, but I am not going to press the point. Let me give -an illustration which has just been given to me from the officer administering the Act. Information comes to the department that a person professing to manufacture a certain commodity is in receipt of large quantities of another material which may be used as an adulterant. That is information upon which an investigation may be proceeded with. It may be that all the informant knows is that the commodity has been shipped in. That does lend assistance to the department in securing a conviction. That is what was in the mind of the officials of the department in suggesting these words. It is not direct information; it is only

information with regard to a fact that puts the department in a position to make inquiry; they follow it up and subsequently discover the main offence for which the man is prosecuted.


Mr. McKBNZIE:: Is that not ususally
provided for,by some sort of a (Secret service fund? It should not he provided for by the court. Whether the minister knows it or not, there is such a fund, and moneys of that kind aTe being paid out from time to time for the enforcement of Acts.


George Green Foster: It would furnish a great fund of criticism for an Opposition.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We furnish .a great
fund of information to the Government, and it is information which they seem to require. If there is any division of the fine to be made, that division must be made by the magistrate. It cannot he made by anybody else. It cannot be divided afterwards by the officer of the department; he has no jurisdiction. The magistrate must say in his conviction where the fine should go and this legislation must be such that the court enforcing it must know what is intended and what disposition shall be made of the fine.


Newton Wesley Rowell: These words "or otherwise given assistance" are to be stricken out.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Before the section is
passed, there is another point that I would like some information on. Section 15, says: "Provided that no portion of any fine shall be paid to any Dominion analyst or to any inspector." Does that include inspectors appointed by the council of a city or other municipality? Do they come under that rule as well as the inspectors of the department in Ottawa?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes; they do not get the benefit of that division of the fine. Section 11 provides in case of municipal inspectors that the fine in every case goes to the municipality to be used as the municipality may direct. Subsection 4 says:
All penalties Imposed and recovered at the suit of any such inspector, shall be paid into the revenue of the city, county, town or village by the council of which such inspector was appointed, and may be used in such manner as the council of such city, county, town or village may direct.
They may themselves provide that a portion may go to their own employee, but in so far as this legislation is concerned we
provide that the fine imposed as the result of a prosecution by a municipal inspector shall be paid to the municipality to be disbursed by themselves as they see fit.


Mr. HAROLD:: I have a letter from a condensing company and they have the impression that it will not be legal for them to sell skim milk even if they mark the packages as skim milk. I would like to have that question cleared up if it is possible at this juncture.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not know of anything in the Act which would prevent selling skim milk as skim milk.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They must describe it as such.


Newton Wesley Rowell: They must describe it as skim milk. If they sold it as milk without describing it as skim milk they would be guilty of violating the law.


John Harold: Would they be permitted to sell it in the event of their describing it as skim milk?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not know of anything in the law that would prevent them.
Section as amended agreed to.
At six o'clock the House resumed and then took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed in Committee consideration of Bill No. 27 respecting Food and Drugs.
On section 16-sale of adulterated or misbranded article, penalty.


Frank S. Cahill: Will the minister explain the provisions to this clause?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The clause does not differ in any material respect, from the provisions in the existing law, as I now recall them, except that it makes a difference in the penalty for an adulteration injurious to health-adulteration in which some poisonous substance or some substance deleterious to health is introduced into the food product -and for other violations of the law. Hon. members will see that the penalty is increased. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $500 and costs, and not less than $50 and costs, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both fine and imprisonment, if the adulteration is injurious to health. If the adulteration is not injurious to health but still an adulteration

within the meaning of the Act, or if the article is misbranded, then the penalty for the first offence is a fine not exceeding $100 and costs and not less than $25 and costs, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. Then, for each subsequent offence the penalty is made the same as in case of an adulteration injurious to health.


Mr. PARENT:: Who is going to benefit
by the fine?


Newton Wesley Rowell: If the fine is the result
of a prosecution instituted by the Government inspectors themselves, it goes to the revenue of Canada, unless in the cases expressly provided for, where it is as a result of information given that a conviction is secured. Then provision may .be made for one-half of the fine going to the party who gives the information. If the conviction is the result of a prosecution instituted by a municipal inspector-an inspector appointed by a municipality in connection with the administration of the Act-then the whole fine goes to the municipality to be disposed of as it may direct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to point out to the minister that the clause as drafted seems to be very far-reaching indeed. Under it, if I am right, a merchant would be liable to a fine of $250 and costs, or imprisonment, simply for exposing in his window an article that happened to be adulterated whether he knew it to be such or not. There may be a provision elsewhere in the Bill which modifies the clause but as it stands it looks frightfully drastic.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will see that clause 17 modifies the one we are discussing. The former reads as follows:
If the person accused proves to the magistrate before whom any prosecution is brought for selling, offering or exposing for sale any article of food or drug that is adulterated or misbranded, that he purchased the article in question for and as an article of the same nature, substance and quality as that demanded of him by the purchaser or inspector, with a written warranty to that effect, and produces the said warranty, or other evidence satisfactory to the magistrate, at the trial, and also prove that he sold it in the same state as that in which he purchased it and that he could not with reasonable diligence have obtained knowledge of its adulteration or misbranding, he shall be discharged from such prosecution

. And so on. So far as the point raised by my hon. friend is concerned, the provision is the same as it has been for many years. In fact, section 17 is designed to make it a little easier for the innocent party than is the case under the existing law. I should think that in practice very few would secure a
fMr. Rowell.1
warranty with the article when they bought it; under the provision as it stands the person accused must not only secure the warranty but must produce it to the justice trying the case. I should think it would be quite sufficient if he established to the satisfaction of the justice that he bought it as of the kind and quality described in the section; and that he should not be required to have procured a warranty at the time he actually purchased it. When we come to section 17, I intend to propose an amendment to this effect.


Mr. BOYS :: When is the notice referred to in subsection 1 of section 17 given? If it is given on the day of the hearing, it would then be too late to obviate the expense of prosecution, and I assume that that is the purpose of that part of the section. It seems to me that if a man is absolutely innocent he should not be called ujfon to pay any costs. There should be a provision in the section that if the person accused establishes his innocence at the first sitting of the court he should not be held responsible for the payment of costs incurred by the prosecutor.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The section contemplates not only that the person accused shall give notice of intention to rely upon the defence referred to, but, in subsection 2, that he shall bring before the court the party from whom he purchased the article. The object is that the person who is really responsible shall pay the penalty.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-want of knowledge:
Newton Wesley Rowell: I move to amend section 17 by striking out the following words:
With a written warranty to that effect, and produces the said warranty, or other evidence satisfactory to the magistrate, at the trial.
Then the only obligation resting upon the accused will be to satisfy the magistrate that he purchased the article bona fide in the manner provided in the section and that he could not with reasonable diligence have obtained knowledge of its adulteration, or misbranding; and that he must bring before the court the party from whom he purchased it.


Georges Parent: If prosecutions are taken without good reason, it is only fair that the costs should be borne, not by the accused, but by the prosecutor. If the person accused proves to the satisfaction of the magistrate that he has not been guilty of negligence he should not be liable to the payment of costs.


William Alves Boys: The first day of the hearing is the first opportunity that the defendant has of giving the notice required; and if he does not give it then and proves his innocence, under this clause he is liable for the payment of costs. That should not be so. It should be provided that if the accused brings the matter to the attention of the court at the first hearing and establishes his innocence, he should not be responsible for costs. Of course, if he fails to bring it to the attention of the court at the first hearing, I agree, he should be responsible for the costs, even if the case against him is dismissed.	*


Newton Wesley Rowell: Reading the latter part of subsection 1 with subsection 2, the net result is that he may give the notice at any time before the case is disposed of and the third party is brought in. My interpretation of it is that he would not be liable to the costs if he gave the notice and brought in the third party at any time before the court disposed of the case.


Georges Parent: In view of what the minister has said. I assume that he would not object to adding to the section a provision that the magistrate shall decide also the question of costs. The minister's interpretation may be all right, but the interpretation of the judge might be quite different.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have not the least objection to inserting the words " including the question of costs " after the words "merits of the case," in subsection 2.
iMr. BOYS: As it stands now the provision might lead to serious injustice, although not involving a very large sum. Let us assume that the defendant is in the police court on this first hearing and that, by his own evidence and iby that of his vendor, he establishes to the satisfaction of the magistrate that he is not guilty. The case should then and there be dismissed, but as he has given no previous notice whatever, according to the words in lines 29 and 30, he is liable to pay the costs incurred by the prosecutor. If the case then stood adjourned, not as to him, or even as to him, and came up another day, counsel might well argue that he had given notice on a previous occasion that he would rely on the clause, and the defendant should not be held responsible for the costs. But cases which are ps clear as that will be disposed of at the first hearing and the costs should not be imposed on the defendant. I do not see how subsection 2 affects the matter in any degree
whatever. It gives power to bring in the third party, but the third party is brought in only when it is perfectly manifest that the defendant is not responsible and the case as regards the defendant is at an end. Therefore, something should be inserted to make it clear that if the defendant gives that notice at the first hearing at which he appears he should not have to pay costs, or at all events, there should be a provision that the magistrate should be enabled, even at a later date than the first hearing, to relieve him of costs if he is innocent.
iMr. ROWELL: One of the objects of this olause is undoubtedly to offer some inducement to the man who is being proceeded against to bring in the party really responsible for the wrong, so that the defendant does not become relieved of the costs if he has actually violated the laws unless he does two things; first, unless he gives notice that he intends relying on this defence; second, unless he brings, or takes proceedings to bring before the court the party primarily responsible for committing the wrong. If any accused claims the benefit of this section and applies to have a summons issued to bring before the court the party who, he says, is really responsible for the wrong, the magistrate could not then dispose of the case in the first instance, but would adjourn the hearing until he had all parties before the court and would then deal with it under subsection 2. That would seem to be the logical method of dealing with the case.


William Alves Boys: That is undesirable, because it simply means bringing all the witnesses back to another sitting of the court and piling on more expense. If an innocent party appears before the court and establishes his innocence, he should not be brought back except as a witness for the prosecution.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Under section 34 of the old Act, which corresponds with subsection 1, the defendant must procure at the time 'he purchases a certificate as to the quality in the form prescribed in the schedule. My hon. friend will see that the olause as now proposed is a greater protection to the innocent man, that is, innocent in the sense that he acted without knowledge.


William Alves Boys: I would suggest that the words:
Unless he gives notice in court that he will rely on the above defence and calls-

Be substituted for the words:
Unless he has given due potice to him that he will rely on the above defence and has called-
Then, when he is in the court room, his counsel will intimate to the court that he is claiming the provisions of this section and that he has with him or undertakes to call the party from whom he purchased. In that event everybody is protected, and an innocent person cannot be called upon to pay costs or to submit to .a second appearance in court with the consequent expense.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I move that the clause be amended to read:
Unless he has given notice to him or gives notice to the court that he will rely on the above defence and has called or calls the party from whom he purchased the said article into the case as hereinafter provided.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there any procedure provided in the Bill for the bringing in of the third party? Third party procedure is well known to the Supreme and County Courts, but it is entirely new, at least I never heard of it, in a magistrate's court.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is provided in subsection (2). So far as the third party is concerned we are not changing the law in any respect from what it has been for many years. It is -quite true, as my hon. friend says, that bringing in a third party is not a common practice in proceedings of this kind, although it is quite common in civil proceedings, but just to meet the class of case we have been discussing this afternoon and evening provision has been made in the Act respecting the adulteration of food and in this Bill for bringing in the person whom the accused declares to be the party from whom he purchased the goods, so that the magistrate may hear all the parties and determine who is responsible. Subsection (2) provides that a summons may issue to bring the third party before a court.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But a magistrate has no power to issue a summons except upon a duly laid information. Who is going to lay the information in this case? A magistrate has no jurisdiction to institute criminal proceedings except upon a duly laid information, and if proceedings are not instituted in that way they will -not stand at all.
Mr'. ROWELL: I appreciate the importance of what my hon. friend has in -mind, but if he iwill look at subsection (2) he will

see that the process as against the third party is initiated upon the sworn declaration of the vendor; that is, the man who is charged with the violation of the law must first make a sworn declaration before the magistrate that he purchased the article in good faith and as provided in subsection (1). Upon that sworn declaration the magistrate issues a summons to a third party calling him -into the case. When the summons issues and the third party is brought in subsection (2) provides the magistrate shall "at the same time hear all the parties and decide upon the entire merits of the case not only as regards the person originally accused, 'but also as regards the third party so brought into the case." I do not think that so far any -trouble has -arisen as to the magistrate's jurisdiction under this section, and it has been the law for a -great many years.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister say that the Act provides that upon the sworn declaration of the accused the magistrate shall have jurisdiction to issue the summons?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is what I understand the Act to mean. It is not set out in so -many words.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But the magistrate
must have jurisdiction.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think this gives him
jurisdiction. So far as I am aware, his jurisdiction has never been -questioned under this clause and it has been in force a gTeat many years. There i-s nobody else who can issue the summons except the magistrate.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: -But -at commo-n law,
and by -all the decisions of courts-the books are full of it-the (magistrate can only issue a process upon a duly laid information. That is the basis of his jurisdiction. He cannot of his own motion institute proceedings. . Suppose a -man refused to come to -court and that -a warrant issues and he is put in gaol. He is brought up under habeas corpus or certiorari and the court would hold that the magistrate had no jurisdiction unless an information of a criminal character has been laid against the man, and the whole thing would go up in smoke.


William Alves Boys: I think the point raised by my hon. friend is well worthy of the minister's consideration. It seems to me that this is in direct contrast to the practice of the criminal courts. You will observe that the declaration is not in the nature of an

information, 'but i't is the sworn statement of the defendant in the case, given on his own behalf, to clear himself from the charge made against him. Upon that a summons is issued. What would the summons be for? Not to answer a distinct charge laid against the third party. It would be issued in the only case pending, namely, against the defendant who gives this evidence and makes the declaration. It is true that this third party might attend and be put in the witness box, not as a defendant or as a witness in a case against himself, but as a witness in the case against the original defendant, and he might claim the protection of the law and refuse to answer on the ground of incrimination. It seems to me that as against the third party the procedure should be very much the same as in liquor cases. A man charged with being drunk is called upon to state where he got his liquor. He gives that evidence, and then a fresh information is immediately laid against the party from whom he got the liquor, and a fresh case is commenced. I think my bon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) is quite right: 'There should be another information laid against the third party, who should be called, not as a witness, but as a defendant in a case against himself. I do not know what the practice has been in the past so far as this is concerned, but I have had some little experience in criminal law and I never heard of such a thing before. It seems to me it requires careful consideration before such a far-reaching change is made in the existing criminal law .


Newton Wesley Rowell: I confess I am not quite able to follow the view of my hon. friend on this section. I should think it is quite clear that the third party is not called there as a witness, but as a third party in the case, and that he becomes a party to the proceedings. The procedure is not dissimilar, if one may so state it, to the procedure in civil cases where a third party comes in. In a civil case, if a third party is brought in, he is brought in at the instance of the defendant, who must file his claim over as against the third party. This section provides that he must file a sworn declaration. That declaration must set out that he purchased the goods from this third party, that he purchased them in good faith, that he purchased them as an article of the same nature, substance and quality as that demanded of him by the informant, and that he sold the article in the same state as that in which he purchased it. Therefore, he sets out in the sworn declaration the facts which constitute an offence
under the Act. That declaration, I would submit, would be in substance an information of an offence committed under the terms of the Act. Upon that the magistrate issues a summons, not to bring the third party there as a witness, but, as the section provides, to call such third party into the case." He thereby becomes a party to the proceedings. Then the magistrate "shall at the same time hear all the parties and decide upon , the entire merits of the case, not only as regards the person originally accused, but also as regards the third party so brought into the case." It would be an adjudication just as we have under the third party procedure in civil cases. I shall discuss the matter further with the Department of Justice, and in the meantime let the matter stand.


James Hamilton Ross: If a manufacturer in Quebec sold foodstuffs to a retailer in Ontario and the retailer were prosecuted, how could an order of a magistrate in Ontario be enforced against the manufacturer in Quebec?


Newton Wesley Rowell: He could be brought before the magistrate in Ontario upon a warrant backed by a magistrate in his own province, as in the case of information laid under the criminal code.


James Hamilton Ross: This is not under the criminal code.


Newton Wesley Rowell: This is a Dominion statute applicable to all provinces. However, I am prepared to discuss the matter further with the department. I agree that there should be no uncertainty regarding the law in dealing with matters that are criminal or quasi-criminal in character, and if there is ambiguity it should be cleared up.


William Alves Boys: As I read the section, the
sworn declaration is really in the nature of an information, and it becomes the duty of the defendant to lay that information. If this "sworn declaration" were made "information," the magistrate on the strength of the information could issue a summons and the same end would be attained.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend will
find laid down in part 15 of the criminal code the provision that before any magistrate can make any criminal motion against a person there must be information.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I move that section 17
stand.
Motion agreed to: section 17 stands.
On section 18-no Gertiorari.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I hope the minister
will withdraw this section.


William Alves Boys: Does the minister not think it proper to give the appeal in this case to the divisional courts? In most summary conviction cases there is an appeal, in Ontario at least, to a divisional court. The appeal is heard within two or three weeks of the sitting of the police court, and at a very trifling expense. In view of the fact that the fines imposed in this Act run up to as high as $500 it seems to me that there should be some protection against conviction by a justice of the peace in the country, who very often has not very much experience in matters of this kind.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This seems to be a crude way of getting clear of the defects contained in section 17. The minister provides an absolutely bad procedure in section 17, and then says you cannot review it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I move that section 18
stand.
Motion agreed to: section 18 stands.
On section 19-voluntary payments.


Georges Parent: Will any part of the
amount voluntarily paid under this section be given to the prosecutor?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The amount voluntarily-paid to the minister will be dealt with "as if lawfully recovered upon prosecution," and that I think would permit of a portion of it being paid to the informant. This does not go as far as the old Act, which provided that, upon examination being made, and the sample being found to be adulterated, the minister might exercise his discretion and simply require the party to pay the cost of procuring and analysing the sample, and not proceed further. We have not continued that provision, but have provided for voluntary payment of the fine which would be imposed, the expense of prosecution in court being obviated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is there any
section of the Bill which pre-supposes a payment of that kind or makes provision for it?	'


Newton Wesley Rowell: The old clause provided, as the present Act does, for taking a sample for analysis, the result of such analysis to be communicated to the party. It then goes on to say: '
The Minister may at his discretion cause the result of the analysis to he communicated to the vendor and require him to pay the party specified in the second schedule of this Act for the cost of procuring and analysing said sample. And should such vendor refuse or neglect to do so, the minister may then cause legal proceedings to be taken against him as hereinafter provided.

The only penalty you might impose at the discretion of the minister would be the penalty of paying the cost of procuring and analysing the sample. If he did. not choose to pay that voluntarily a prosecution might be instituted under the Act. It appeared to the officers administering the department that that was not a very satisfactory provision. If a person is to be let off without a prosecution he should pay the penalty which the law provides, but if the party comes forward and is prepared to pay the fine the minister should not be compelled to prosecute him before the court in order to recover it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The old law, under which cases had to come before the courts in-the first instance, would give greater protection to the accused than this law, would it not?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, the old law did not require them to proceed in the manner I have mentioned. An offender might be prosecuted in the first instance, but it gave discretion to the minister to make him pay the cost of procuring and analysing a sample. Under the present Bill the minister may permit him to pay the fine voluntarily without going through any procedure in court.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the offender pays the penalty under this clause is he still liable to prosecution in court?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This Is a new departure and I think it is a discretion that the officers of the department would do well to avoid altogether. A man comes to court and pleads guilty; a fine is imposed upon him; and that is the end of it. An officer of the Government can state in court the degree of leniency they want to extend to the offender. But it is rather objectionable that the minister should exercise this power in place of the magistrate.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am quite prepared to
admit that there is a good deal in what my hon. friend has said. I hesitated about the section for the very reason that he has mentioned, but in a case of adulteration the party pays the penalty which the law imposes, and this simply gives power to receive it and deal with it as in a case of conviction. It is for the House to say. I am not disposed to press it. I understand that this is done under the Customs 9 p.m. law and is not a new departure.
A similar law was administered by the Department of Inland Revenue be-

fore, and I am not aware that any difficulty has arisen under it.	[DOT]


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is provision here for a second offence, but if a fine of this kind has been paid to the minister it cannot be regarded as a first conviction and there cannot be a second offence. A second *offence means that a man has been convicted, that he is brought up a second time for the same offence, and the record of the *court shows that he has already been convicted. The fact that a man had paid a fine would not constitute a record of conviction and a man could never be convicted of a second offence under a procedure of this kind.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is quite true that it
would not constitute an offence which would lay the basis for a proceeding in a [DOT]second offence. The three penalty sections might stand and I will give them further consideration.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 20-refusal of access:


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is that similar to the old law?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, it is practically the same.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The clause is very far-reaching. It would make liable to this penalty any person who had some food or drug in his possession and did not happen to show it when the inspector came. He might have his store full of these commodities, and if he omitted to show every one of them he would be liable.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is necessary to make
it pretty broad to afford full opportunity for inspection.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: Why should this clause *pass? With all the inspectors that we shall have in cities, towns and municipalities, a retailer would require to have a man whose *special duty it would be to show the inspector around. All that the inspector requires to do is to procure a sample and have it analysed to see whether the article is adulterated or not. I do not see why an inspector should be shown around and given access to everything in the store. It is practically impossible. This is an imposition; it is not legislation.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is the law as it stands on the statute book now.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why should not the
words " or omits '* be left out? I understand the purport of the section is that a 62 .
man is guilty of an offence if he in any way obstructs the officer or keeps him from seeing anything that is in the shop. If the inspector is given full access to the shop, why should it be made criminal if the shopkeeper omits to call his attention to something that he has not specially asked to see? Why not leave out the words "or omits"? Those words in the section, which throw the burden upon the shopkeeper to take the inspector around, should be left out. If the shopkeeper affords full opportunity to the inspector to examine everything in the store that is all that should be asked.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The clause in that respect is exactly ^he same as the law that has been in existence fo-r a very long time. No difficulty has arisen in connection with its administration, no charge of any unfairness has been made, and the law having so far worked satisfactorily, I submit we would not be well advised to change it at the present time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would it not be well to amend the clause so as to make it apply to any person who "knowingly or intentionally omits," btc. That would be a protection and yet would not deprive the provision of any value that it has.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 21-possession of materials by manufacturer usable for adulteration.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is this the same provision as in the old Act?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The principle is the same but the proposed section is somewhat broader. In the case of intoxicating liquors the present section provides that if any ingredients for adulteration are found in the case then the results mentioned follow. The new section makes the iapplieation general both as to food and drink covered by the Act. I will give the committee a concrete illustration of why this section has been broadened. On one occasion the officers of the department went to a certain establishment where, it was suspected, adulteration was taking place. They found a large amount of butter on one side of the room and a large amount of oleomargarine on the other with a mixer in between. What was intended was quite obvious, but not finding the actual adulteration *there was no offence under the law. If parties have adulterants on the premises for which they cannot .satisfactorily account 'then they will be held to be in the business of producing adulterated products. That is the object of [the section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]


On section 22-false label or neglect to label.
Mr. JACOBS:: I 'would like to know whether the provision in the first part of the section applies to the owner or to the servant or to both.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If the employee knowingly attaches a misleading label or mark to any article or package of food or drugs, and thus is a party to deceiving the public, he, as well as the owner, is guilty of the offence.


Samuel William Jacobs: A twelve or thirteen-year old boy, in receipt of three or four dollars a week, who is ordered to do this work, would come under this provision of the section.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I should think that in such a case the boy would not be prosecuted but the owner would. It is not possible to provide for all possible exceptions without weakening the general effect of the law.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This clause contains the word "knowingly" which I suggested might be inserted in the previous clause. My hon. friend from Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) then asked the minister how he would prove "knowingly." I would like to pass the question on to the minister.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Let me give an actual case that occurred in the administration of the law, because it shows the purpose of the section. A man was selling a syrup not made of maple syrup but with a device attached showing maple trees with the spiles in them, with the object of making the purchaser think he was buying maple syrup when such was not the case.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Such a case as that should be severely dealt with.


Newton Wesley Rowell: In such a case as mentioned no one could doubt that the device was knowingly attached to the container.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 23-expenses, counsel fees.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The subsection as to fees in this clause should be omitted.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The section in that respect is exactly the same as the existing law. I am free to say that I was surprised when I came across that provision in the law, but it has been the law for a long time. Then, section 47 of the existing law provides for the expenses of prosecution, including the usual counsel fee, in the discretion of the judge. It is also a provision of the present
[Mr. Rowell. 1
law that if a prosecution is dismissed as being instituted" without reasonable and proper cause, the costs of the defence shall be taxed against the prosecutor. If we include the provision regarding counsel fee, I think we should include also this provision for the payment of costs by the prosecutor who is held to have had no just ground for believing that there had been a violation of the law. I therefore move that the following be added to section 23 as subsection (3):
(3) In the case of a private prosecutor, if the prosecution is dismissed as being institued without reasonable and probable cause, the costs of defence shall be taxed against the prosecutor.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Ninety-five per cent of the magistrates in this country have not the slightest conception of what a counsel fee is; yet they are asked to say what shall be a reasonable counsel fee. If the Government engages counsel to prosecute these cases, they themselves ought to pay counsel; that has been the practice all along in every branch of the administration of justice, customs and inland revenue. I certainly did not know that there was such a provision anywhere as this. I hope that the minister will leave counsel fees, briefs and all such things as these to the Superior Courts, where there are competent authorities to deal with them.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If we strike out that provision we add so much more to the expense of enforcing the law. My information is that the counsel fee is almost invariably included by the magistrate, though in some few cases the magistrate may refuse to fix or to include the fee. Generally speaking, a fee of about $20 is what is usually fixed by the magistrate in these contested cases. Most of the parties who are found guilty under the Adulteration Act have substantial means and can afford to pay this cost of administration; we are anxious not to add to the burdens of the public treasury in enforcing the law.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why not state that the
fee shall be $20, no more and no less? " Reasonable fee " is a somewhat equivocal term.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No complaints have been received against the provisions of the old law, and no difficulties have so far arisen in its administration. Perhaps it would be wiser to leave it as it is.


William Alves Boys: There are too many of these enactments which enable a magistrate to award costs against the defendant when the prosecution is unsuccessful. I have never

yet seen the case where a defendant who has , had to employ counsel and pay his own witness fees has been able to get any costs awarded against those who brought him there without proper cause. My idea would be to leave the question of counsel fees and costs, except ordinary police court costs, entirely out. But if you make provision concerning them, then if the prosecution is successful let them get costs, and if the defendant is successful let him get costs. Let the costs on both sides be taxable on the same scale.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 24-other remedies:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Where is an offence
under this Act made a criminal offence?


Newton Wesley Rowell: This section simply provides that if a party is liable to a prosecution by way lof indictment, proceedings under this Act do not prevent prosecution by way of indictment being taken. One can imagine that several provisions of the Code might be violated by parties violating the provisions of this measure, although I have not any in mind at present. In other words, acts on their part that are offences under this legislation might also be offences under the Code. This clause is simply the re-enactment of the existing section 21 of the present Act.


Samuel William Jacobs: I assume that when a party has been proceeded against under this legislation, he cannot afterwards be indicted for the same offence, but clause 24 seems to make that possible.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I should have thought if a man were proceeded against under this legislation and paid the penalty, he would not be liable to prosecution upder the Code for the same offence. We are providing a special procedure for dealing iwith a certain class of offences, and but for this provision it might be argued that having made express provision for dealing with a certain class of offences, we have thereby taken them out of the purview of the Code. I take it that this clause is intended to make clear that such is not the case and that a man imay be proceeded against under the Code notwithstanding the provisions of this legislation. I should think, however, that on the general principles of criminal jurisprudence, you could not prosecute a man twice for the same offence.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
62*
On section 26-repeal.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I notice that in several parts of this measure provision is made for a second offence, bu't I find no procedure established for obtaining a conviction for a second offence. I think I am safe in saying that in the ordinary proceedings before a magistrate's court there is no provision for obtaining a conviction' for a second offence. There is such in temperance legislation. The minister -might -consult with the Department of Justice as to how he purposes proceeding in proving a second offence.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I shall take that into consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister referred to one or two clauses in the old Act which have not been incorporated in this new legislation. Have any other material clauses in the old Act been omitted from this, and, if so, what is their nature?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think I explained to my hon. friend that clauses relating to agricultural fertilizers, proprietary and patent medicines, honey, maple products, commercial feeding stuffs and normal animal feed such as bran, shorts and middlings, have been dealt with in separate Acts. There are certain commodities referred to in the Act, the use of turpentine in paint, white lead for paints, white lead in oil for paint, Paris green as an insecticide, and arsenate of lead as an insecticide, which are dealt with only in a very meagre way, and we are now giving consideration to the question whether it is necessary to introduce a Bill dealing with these or whether we shall suggest that the legislation relating to 'them is no longer required. I shall be glad to make a statement as to that when the Bill comes back into committee again.
Progress reported.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. C. Ballantyne (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), Bill No. 21, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Certificates of Service), was read the second time, and the House went into- committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-requirements for certificates of service as masters and mates:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How many schools for the training of masters and mates are there in Canada, where are they located, and

how many masters and mates passed the requisite examination within the last year? I should like the minister to give us some idea of what is being done in this connection. Is an effort toeing made to get properly qualified masters and mates without taking extreme measures?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: We have a number of schools throughout Canada, but, I am sorry 'I cannot give the exact number at the moment, nor can I say how many masters and mates have been granted certificates within the past year. I can only repeat what I stated when the resolution was under discussion, that a real shortage of masters and mates for sailing vessels not over 750 tons does exist, and that during the war I had to take the necessary authority under the War Measures Act to remedy the situation. The shortage still exists.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it not a fact that in connection with the School of Technology at Halifax there is a branch for the training of masters, mates, engineers and so forth? Has the minister any record of what is being done at that school in this respect?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member is quite right, there is a school at Halifax; there are others at Quebec, Kingston, and different centres throughout the country. I have not with me the figures as to the number of masters and mates who have qualified, but the object of this Bill is to supply the shortage.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it the intention of the minister that the test or examination shall be conducted by a shipmaster, or by some proper authority apart from the minister himself? If so,' what machinery is provided for the proper examination of masters and mates so that they can obtain the certificate provided for under this proposed legislation?
Mr. 'BALLANTYNE: The man who wishes to become master or mate of a sailing vessel must have served on a sailing ship for twelve months at some time during the past ten years. He has to appear before the examiners of masters and mates, and pass an oral examination on the rules of the road. He must be able to take observations, read signals, and must know all that is required of any one desiring to become certificated either as master or mate. The only difference between this examination and the one for a competency certificate is that in the latter case the man takes a written examination, and in this case the examination is oral. I think my hon. friend will
fMr. McKenzie.]
agree that many excellent men who could not pass a written examination have the necessary training and technical knowledge to pass an oral examination. We are not lowering the standard at all, inasmuch as this is 'limited to sailing vessels not over 750 tons.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The .minister says that among the qualifications required is ability to take observations and ascertain his position at sea, his latitude and longitude, and the amount of leeway his vessel may have made during the night, or in a storm, or from currents. I can find no such provision in the Bill. It does not provide that he shall toe able to work out chronometer time for instance, or be able to work the sextants and locate the position of the ship. If an examination of that kind must be passed, much of my objection to the Bill will vanish, but I can find no such provision here. I think it would be an extraordinary thing for this House solemnly to legislate that a man can take charge of a 750-ton ship with a crew and valuable cargo, who, if he struck a storm or a spell of bad weather, would be absolutely unable to ascertain where he was. If that is the kind of men we are willing to see take charge of our ships, the House must take the responsibility. If the minister says that they must possess this necessary knowledge I should like to see it clearly stated in the Bill.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Section 85 provides that the man must produce "satisfactory evidence of his sobriety, experience, ability and general good conduct on board ship; and (c) passes the sight-test and the prescribed examination in signalling." He must also understand signalling and be able to find his position. He must know the rules of the road and everything that a mate or captain would need to know. The examination is along the usual lines. I am only asking that the Shipping Act be brought, not up to date, but from 1870 up to ten years prior to 1920. I can assure my hon. friend that no master or mate will be certificated unless he possesses the necessary navigation knowledge and technical skill.	.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think that any person who has a fair knowledge of the working of a ship and of nautical matters can complain that the requirements to-day are too strict It is not a very difficult matter to pass the examination prescribed. If it is not the purpose of this Bill to make it still easier, and to open the door to men to take charge of ships who could

not take charge of them under the present law, it seems to me it has no purpose at all. I take it for granted that the purpose of this legislation is to lower the qualifications required, and to open the door wide to almost any person to take charge of a ship. A ship of 750 tons is quite a craft, and will have quite a number of men on board. It is not necessarily a schooner, rigged vessel; it may be a square-rigged vessel. The minister will readily understand that there is quite a difference in the working of the two. The handling of a square-rigged vessel, a barque, a barquan-tine, a -brig or brigantine, requires very different handling from a schooner-rigged vessel. The man must know how to set the yards and sails, and send his men aloft on the yards. So far as I can see, this Bill makes no provision for requiring that knowledge before a man can obtain a certificate. Perhaps the minister has in his mind some examination, but I think it is always best and safest for the public to have these things in the Bill when the legislation is being put through the House.
I regret that the minister should take the view that he is bringing this Act up to date by making it possible for a man who served a year on board a vessel ten years ago to obtain a certificate. I have already explained as well as I could why this provision was in the old Act. Formerly a large number of men made their living by going to sea when we had no examinations; and when the Act was passed it was thought hard that such men, although they had no technical education nor hook learning, should be thrown out of employment. Provision was therefore made that if they could show that they had done the work and were able to do it they would be given an opportunity to obtain service certificates. It must be remembered that a servi'ce certificate is different from the certificate which a man gets by virtue of examination, and now that the law has been in force for a number of years any man who contemplates being, a captain should be prepared to comply with that law and give adequate proof of his knowledge. The same justification for service certificates does not exist to-day as existed when the law was first introduced thirty or forty years ago. 1 protest against this proposal, and I have shown the minister that I am not alone in my opposition to it. The Association of Shipmasters of British Columbia, as well as the Association of the Maritime Provinces, through their president at Halifax, have sent me telegrams protesting against this
matter, which I have communicated to the minister. I regret that I do not seem to receive much sympathy in this House in this respect. The shipmaster's profession has always been regarded as an excellent one, but now that profession is to be degraded, and hardly any qualification will be required of a man who wants to take charge of a ship. Any person may command a vessel who has been for a year on board of any sort of craft, no matter of what description; he can come before the minister and obtain a certificate to be the master of a ship of 750 tons; I have already brought to the notice of the minister the fact that certain requirements in -our own Act provide for the approval of the Board of Trade in England before our certificates are of any value. This very question has ' been before Canadian conferences in England, and if the minister will consult an ex-minister who is now a Judge of the Supreme Court he will learn that that gentleman had this question under consideration *vand endeavoured to obtain from the home authorities full power for this Parliament to abrogate the jurisdiction which the British Parliament has over our legislation in regard to shipping, but that power has never been obtained. Nevertheless we are ignoring the jurisdiction of the British Parliament and taking the whole business into our ovn hands. There is nothing in the British Nprth America Act giving us control over shipping. We started out in Confederation with the Shipping Act of 1854, and we also had the British Shipping Act ot 1894 with its amendments practically all of which applies to this coimgy. However, the minister chooses to go on in hio own way and send men across the Atlantic with certificates of the kind to which I have raised such strong objection, and under the British Shipping Act 1 rather think that these men will get themselves into trouble. Many years ago I discussed this matter with Hon. Mr. Brodeur, who was then Minister of Marine and Fisheries and is now a Judge of the Supreme Court, and on his authority I can inform the House that he had this very question under consideration with the British Government. The question is not settled. If the minister elects to ignore this fact and all the other circumstances to which X have alluded he does so on his own responsibility.


John Howard Sinclair: I think my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) is putting the case a little too strongly when he says that any man who goes to sea for a year is allowed,

under this Act, to take charge of a ship. I do not understand the Act in this way. The Act provides that any man who has acted as master of a ship for a year will be qualified, which is very different from the interpretation of my hon. friend. He must have become a master by some means or other, possibly by permission of the department; but it is necessary that he shall have had one year's experience as a master before he can be qualified. This is a certain amount of experience and ought to weigh with the department. I have not much sympathy with the idea that we should be controlled in our shipping laws by the dictates of Downing street. This is purely a domestic matter., We are discussing the qualifications of captains on Canadian ships belonging to Canadian citizens and registered in Canadian ports, and I do not thnk that the home government should have anything at all to do with such an exclusively- Canadian matter. There are certain questions in regard to shipping that refer to the trade of the Empire, matters in which the Board of Trade in England is interested. One case that occurs to my mind just now is the deckload law. I was in the House some years ago when an attempt was made to change the law in regard to deckloads in the lumber trade. The old law permitted a ship to load with, I think, three feet of deckload. The ships after this law was passed were built to contain two decks, and the construction of the law was that this three feet was on the lower deck, so that the shipowner had to leave the rest of the lower deck empty. It was a hardship for Canadian shipowners and merchants shipping lumber, and it took some years to get the matter adjusted. The Board of Trade in England claimed that they had some interest in the matter and that it conflicted with the terms of the Merchants Shipping Act, but then finally gave their consent to an amendment of the law, so that the three feet of deckload could be put on the top deck and not on the second. I do not think we ought to ask the British Government anything about a question of this kind. This is a Canadian question pure and simple. I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) that men ought to be encouraged to pass examinations.
I would like to see a captain carrying his regular certificate issued by a Canadian board or by the Minister of Marine. That would be an ideal system. But captains are very scarce at the present time on the coasts of Canada and it is with great diffi-

culty that captains are found to man the ships we have. Ships have increased largely during the war but the same increase did not take place in the number of certificated men. No later than this morning I received a telegram from a gentleman who has built a ship of 300 or 400 tons in my constituency and who is in trouble about a captain; it is impossible for him to get a captain to take that ship to sea. The ship is ready. He has a competent man who has had twenty years experience as the master of a small vessel -a vessel so small that he did not need under our laws to take out a certificate,; consequently he has not the necessary certificate to take charge of this larger vessel. Yet, he is a good enough man, the owner knows he is good enough, and the people who are insuring the ship are quite satisfied with him. Why should he not be allowed to take that vessel to sea? The owner ought to be the best judge as to his competency. I do not think that the danger to the crew amounts to very much in the case of a man who has had that much experience and who is a careful seaman.
My hon. friend knows as well as I do that for many years we did not have certificates at all in Nova Scotia, yet we built up a great mercantile fleet prior to Confederation and something was done in that direction after Confederation. It was experience we trusted and it worked out very well. There is a great deal to be said in favour of that system. The United States came to that conclusion many years ago. They had the same experience and the same development as we have had here. A large number of coasting vessels were built on the coasts of the United States., Seamen were scarce and the Government of the United States, a good many years -ago, made a law similar to the one which my hon. friend is -now trying to pass providing that ships of less than 700 tons did not require to have -certificated captains. That is the law at present in the United States, and it is with the United States that we are competing. There is much to be said in favour of the Bill. I feel inclined to vote for it. I do not see the same danger from it that my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) seems to see. I think the Bill will be found to be very useful to the trade on the coasts of eastern Canada at all events and I do not think there is very much danger in taking this step, especially as it has already been taken in the United States and our ships in business in South America and the West Indies have to compete with the United States.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In answer to the
hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), I would say again that no master or mate can get a certificate simply by reason of having served twelve months on ,a sailing ship during the last ten years. All have to serve for twelve months and if a man wishes to become the master of a sailing ship not larger than 750 tons he has to appear before an examining hoard of masters and mates and pass an examination which is much more rigid than that prior to 1870. Prior to 1870, they did not call upon a man who desired to be a master or mate to go through the eye or signalling test. A man can only obtain a service certificate as a captain or a mate if he passes the rigid examination which is prescribed.
I find in the memorandum which is before me now that the Masters and Mates Act has always provided for the issuing of service certificates to masters and mates. Under sections 95, 96 and 97 of the Canada Shipping Act a master or mate is properly certificated if he holds a service certificate. Under this Act upwards of 4,800 masters' and mates' certificates have been issued. With all due deference to one of my predecessors, Hon. Mr. Brodeur, I am sorry that I cannot agree with him. With regard to a man holding a masters certificate and going to ,a United Kingdom port on a vessel not over 750 tons, the master of a Canadian registered vessel is granted clearance from a port of the United Kingdom if he holds a service certificate just the same as if he held a competency certificate. There will be no trouble about a Canadian captain holding a service certificate clearing from any United Kingdom port. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) has pointed out quite truly that our American friends do not ask for any certificates whatever for a master or mate on a sailing ship up to 750 tons. We have to compete with our neighbours to the south and as we are much more careful than they are, for our men have to pass the examination that I have referred to besides sailing for twelve months on a sailing ship; whereas, across the line a man can go abroad one of these vessels as master without any service at all. The British Board of Trade issue masters 'service certificates without examination to certain officers of the Royal Navy. I think that this House is quite within its rights in granting these certificates to men who have the necessary knowledge and pass the necessary oral examination.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the minister is right that we can branch out for ourselves entirely and make our own navigation laws without any reference to the rules of the road or to British jurisdiction, why not do it? Why not introduce an Act and dispense entirely with any knowledge of the rules
10 p.m. of the road? We cannot, and why not? We cannot do it because of the conference of the maritime countries of the world which have agreed to the rules of the road. These rules of the road are binding on the British Empire of which we are a part and we cannot change them. That is the law that guides us and we cannot change one letter of it. The minister says in one breath that we are absolutely independent of the British marine law and in the next that we must comply with it. He puts in here a provision with reference to the rules of the road. What rules of the road? We have no rules. If we do not come within the British rules of the road and within the British Act we cannot sail ships. We have only one flag. The Canadian flag is not recognized as a shipping flag. Every Canadian ship, no matter where it goes, must have the British flag, there is no other flag of ours that is recognized.
I have received from Vancouver a telegram which it is my duty to read. It is dated 22nd March, is addressed to myself, and is as follows;
We strongly endorse your stand and support statements attributed to you on Bill proposing inferior certificates Canadian masters and mates.
Canadian Merchant Service Guild.
I have also received a message from Halifax to the following effect:
Representing the certificated masters and mates of Maritime Provinces strongly protest against Bill granting certificates master and mate sail ships seven hundred fifty tons without duly qualifying. Canadian seagoing certificates recognized in all British ships and possessions. Therefore must equal standard British Board of Trade. Coastwise and lower grades accessible to any man capable of having charge of life and property and standard low enough. Bill gross injustice and should be thrown out or hoisted. If passed will ruin the profession. Shortage of masters exaggerated, and if any primarily due to acting present Government granting permits.
A. W. Innis, President, Shipmasters' Association.
We have1 only two ocean fronts in this country, one on the Pacific and the other on the Atlantic. On both ocean fronts they have a Masters' Association, and both of these associations protest against this legislation as degrading their profession. All I can do is to bring these communications to the attention of the minister; but if he hap-

pens to have some influence brought to bear upon him by people who have ships and who care nothing for the crew of the vessels, care nothing for anything except to make dollars for themselves, and care *not whether their masters are qualified or not-if he is influenced by such men, the responsibility is his. That is not my language, that is the language of the Halifax Board, who say that if any person wants to look properly for ia 'qualified master and will give him a proper wage, they can get him, 'but they cannot secure a first-class master for second-rate pay. The minister seems to be very strong in his conception of the law. I would like him, however, to explain to the Committee and to the country generally the meaning of section 95 of our present Shipping Act, which is chapter 13 of the Revised Statutes, volume 3. As I read that Act, it requires that our legislation shall be approved by the home Government. If that is correct, I still *stand by my position that the certificate which we grant-unless the King in Council of Great Britain approves it under the terms of the Shipping Act of 1894-has no effect at all. If this section of our own Act means anything else, I would like the minister to explain it.


Mr. DUFF:: I do not wish to discuss with the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) any point of law, but I notice that in the telegram which he read from Captain Innis that officer does not agree with the hon. gentleman's interpretation of Clause 95 of the Canada Shipping Act. You may have noticed, Sir, that part of that telegram said that Canadian certificates were 'acknowledged all over the world, practically admitting they were as good as any other certificate. Therefore, the hon. gentleman and the President of the Ship Masters' Association of Nova Scotia are not in agreement as to the meaning of Clause 95 of the Canadian Shipping Act.
My reading of the law is that there are three kinds of certificates which can be issued under Clause 95. For example paragraph (a):
Of competency or service for seagoing ships appropriate to their several stations in such ship, or of a higher grade from the minister;
That is to say, if I read the subsection correctly, that the Minister of Marine can issue a certificate of competency of service without any reference whatever to the British Board of Trade or the British 'Government.
Now paragraph (b):

Of competency or service for seagoing ships, appropriate *to their several stations in such ship, or of a higher grade, from the Board of Trade in the United Kingdom.
That is to say, if I understand the wording of the paragraph, that the Minister of Marine can issue a certificate of competency and it is sent to the Board of Trade in England for confirmation or approval. Therefore, I think, under this Act the minister is perfectly within his rights in issuing certificates of competency with, respect to seagoing ships in this country without consulting the Board of Trade or the Government in England.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) also said that at a conference held some time ago of the different nations, rules of the road were agreed on, and consequently we can have nothing to do with the matter. The reason rules of the road were agreed upon by the different nations was, for example, this:	A French ship coming into
the St. Lawrence river might meet a British or a 'German ship going out, and it would be necessary for the two ships to know the , rules of the road. That is the reason why the rules of the road are international. It has nothing at all to do with the issuance of certificates to masters and mates, and does not affect our position as to whether we can issue the certificates in 'Canada or not.
I might also say that the British Board of Trade are not as particular as they were a few years ago. They are waking up to to the fact that it is not necessary for a man to have a certificate to sail a ship. A few years ago when Canadian ships, or ships from any other nation, went to Great Britain, the British customs officer would not clear them unless they had a certificated master. I have known a number of cases where a ship from the British Domin- * ions that went into Liverpool or Cardiff, or other ports, had to get an English master to clear the ship, and they put him ashore when the pilot went off the boat.
Last summer a number of masters who' were not Certificated had charge of Canadian ships which cleared from Canadian ports, and in my opinion these masters were just as good as the certificated men. They took the ships to England, and the British authorities cleared the ships back with the same men on board without even asking them if they had a certificate. The British-Board of Trade, therefore, realize that it is not necessary in all cases that these men have certificates. I am just as anxious as the member for North Cape Breton and' Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) that masters and

mates who have charge of our ships should 'have" certificates. I should be the last to suggest that we should not endeavour where-ever possible to make our men get certificates. But I do say that under present regulations it is practically impossible for an ordinary man to pass the examination.
I was pleased to hear the member for North Cape Breton refer to the calling of the seamen as a "profession." I will certainly pass that word around when I get home; I will tell my seafaring friends that they are now in a class with lawyers, doctors, clergymen and men of other professions; and they will he proud indeed to hear it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: How about the officers?


William Duff: 
Georges Henri Boivin: Order. May I ask
the hon. member whether the poem which he proposes to read has any reference to the Bill under consideration?


William Duff: I think it has.


William Stevens Fielding: Is it a poem of the sea?


William Duff: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: Then it has reference
to this Bill.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am very sorry, but I have to rule that the hon. member may not read the poem.


William Duff: It is worth reading, Mr. Chairman. I would like you to hear it.


Georges Henri Boivin: This is not the time or the place to read it. Shall the clause carry?


William Duff: Well, if I may not read the poetry I shall have to proceed in prose. My idea is that these gentlemen who compose the Halifax Shipmasters' Association need not stay ashore and send telegrams to Ottawa. If they are capable men and want ships, the owners in Nova Scotia will give them ships. If ithey stay ashore, it is their own fault.


Mr. PELLETIER:: The member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) read telegrams from British Columbia, Halifax and Prince Edward Island. It seems strange that these people should send these telegrams; they are well organized and are affiliated with national and international organizations. While in the province of Quebec during the Easter recess I .met quite a few masters and mates who are also members of said organization, and they expressed themselves as willing to submit to the examination. If the masters and mates from other districts were opposed to this measure, I should think that the masters and mates from Quebec would also be opposed to it, but they are not. It seems to me that instead of lessening the efficiency of navigation, this measure would increase it. On the last day of the last session I opposed a Bill which had been introduced dealing with this subject on the ground that a man who was not certificated could take charge of a ship, even if he did not know the rules of the road. This Bill is quite different, it calls for efficiency; and I fail to see why it should not pass. In 1906, the Quebec pilots willingly submitted to an examination, and they are submitting to an annual examination for eyesight, hearing and so forth. If the masters and mates are not competent; if they are not holding certificates, what has happened in years past will happen in years to come. When an accident happens, an inquest is held, and, as has happened on different occasions, the captain or master in charge of the vessel who is responsible for the accident, will not be blamed because nothing can be done to him as he does not hold a certificate, but the pilot who is certificated will have to bear the burden. Therefore, I fail to see why this Bill is not a good one, and I believe it will assist in the securing of competent service. Sub-clause (c) states:
Passes the sight test and the prescribed examination in signalling.
I would suggest that after the word " signalling '' the words " and the rules of the road " be added. I believe these men
[The Chairman.]
should know the rules of the road as well as be able to pass the other tests. *


William Stevens Fielding: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have repeatedly
asked the minister to give the committee some explanation as to what is meant by the clause in our old lawn I can understand the minister and his supporters ignoring the British law and saying:	We have
nothing to do with the British law and it has nothing to do with us; the shipping law in Great Britain is no good; we shall turn and have truck and trade with the Yankees. That is what we are going to do; -we are going to accept their laws; we are going to lower the standard of the good old Mother Country who has been the pride of the sea for a thousand years. We are going lio wipe that out and take the regulations under which a few old craft are sent out from Caplin and Gloucester as the standard of our shipping in Canada henceforth. Crystallized, that is the sum and substance of the logic of hon. gentlemen who are supporting this Bill. The minister refuses to give me any explanation of his understanding of sections 95 and 96. It is quite true that he changes two sections of the law which qualify his men; he makes it simple and easy for them to become masters. Has the minister ever come across a man to whom he would offer a certificate of competency in any walk of life and the man would say: I will not take it; I am going to school in order to qualify myself, and I will get the certificate according to law?
I would think the man would be likely to take the certificate at once and take chances on making good. That is the doctrine the minister has established and is supporting here. He is saying to the men of this country: You need not go to school; you need not know anything about navigation; you need not qualify yourself as a first-class seaman, the pride of the British Empire; I will give you a parchment which is good enough. I should like the minister to explain whence the call for this change came. Did the Board of Trade of Quebec, or of Montreal, or of Halifax, or of Sydney, or "of Vancouver, petition the Government asking for this change in the law? If there are such petitions, they should be laid on the Table or put upon Hansard so that we would have that information. So far the minister has not given one word of testimony from any of those institutions which I have mentioned, nor from any other body of men interested in navigation and trade in this country. If there are such demands, I should be disposed to think I am wrong in taking the position I take. The minister may provide a man with a certificate, but when he comes to sending him to sea he will find that section 95 of the Canada Shipping Act stands in the way. That section provides that:
No ship registered in Canada, over one hundred tons registered tonnage, shall go to sea from any port or place in Canada on any voyage not being a coasting voyage, unless the master and first mate or only mate thereof have obtained and possess valid' certificates either,-
(a)	of competency or service for sea-going ships, appropriate to their several stations in such ship, or of a higher grade, from the minister; or,
(b)	of competency or service for sea-going ships, appropriate to their several stations in such ship, or of a higher grade, from the Board of Trade in the United Kingdom; or
(c)	of competency appropriate to their several stations in such ship, or of a higher grade, granted in any British possession-
Here is the part of the Act which the distinguished marine lawyer who now happens to be at the head of the department ignores entirely. He thinks no attention should be paid to the opinion of a Supreme Court judge who says this law is absolutely wrong; he knows better. It is simply an extension of his doctrine about shipmasters; it is not necessary for them to know anything, he thinks, and so why should it be necessary for a lawyer to have any training? He says: I never had any training as a lawyer but I put my opinion above that of even a Supreme Court judge. A knowledge of the law is all nonsense-that is the position he takes. Section 95 provides that, in addition

to the qualifications I have just quoted, there must be added a certificate:
(c) of competency appropriate to their several stations in such ship, or of a higher grade, granted in any British possession, and declared by order of His Majesty in Council, published in the London Gazette, under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, or of any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom containing such provisions, to be of the same force as certificates of competency for foreign sea-going ships granted under the Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom relating to merchant shipping.
* To get a certificate in the United Kingdom certain requirements have to be met, certain knowledge must be possessed by the candidate, and an examination must be passed. The minister says:	I will issue
certificates which do not come up to the British standard at all; my requirements will be lower, but at the same time I shall expect the Board of Trade and His Majesty in Council to say that they are of just as high a standard as the certificates issued in Great Britain. If the minister can get His Majesty in Council to do so, that is another matter, but from my knowledge of how things are done in Great Britain I would think that the first thing His Majesty's advisers would do would be to ascertain what are the qualifications required under this new Act and compare them with the qualifications required under the British Act, and then they would advise His Majesty not to give his assent to a proposal that would be a deception upon the face of it. The qualifications required would not be the same.
That is all I care to say about the matter. I still stand by the position I took before, that in education as well as in other matters, we should be advancing not retrograding in this country. The minister will find when he puts his policy before the people and they see that he is undermining ambition and is taking away from young men the desire to qualify for positions in this walk of life, and that in this he has made a mistake. We have a navigation school in my own town, and I know of no one who tried examinations from that school who did not pass; but what encouragement have they to try and qualify themselves now when masters and mates are to be turned out by the minister by the yard, just as if he was measuring off pieces of cloth, without any educational requirements at all?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
'Mr. McKenzie.]

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid, Bill No. 22, .to confirm an Agreement between His Majesty the King and the Corporation of the City of Ottawa was read a second time and the House went into Committee thereon. Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-agreement confirmed:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
in speaking to the resolution went pretty fully, .1 think, into the main features of the agreement, but there was some information he was to give, when the Bill got into committee, relating to the extent of the increased service the city was rendering the Government.


John Dowsley Reid: The Government have been taking over a lot of property in Ottawa during the last few years, and that means that the city has lost the taxes on those properties. That is one reason why we think there should be an increase in the amount paid to the city. Furthermore, the city are sprinkling water along Wellington street and in front of the Government buildings, and they furnish fire protection to any buildings owned or occupied by the Government. The city also sprinkles the parks and driveways that are maintained by the Ottawa Improvement Commission. All these things represent increased service. The $15,000 that was formerly paid was simply for. fire protection alone. The city's claim, I think, is a very good one, because in the last few years we have been taking over a great deal of property on which the city have been collecting taxes. It is not really an increase that we are giving the city in view of the increased service they are rendering.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: Is it the intention of the Government, when they take over property belonging to other cities, Montreal, for instance, to compensate the city for the taxes they lost?


John Dowsley Reid: No, we have not been doing that. Ottawa is the seat of Government.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY:	The Government
does not pay any taxes on property it acquires in the city of Montreal. *


John Dowsley Reid: This is the seat of
Government, and the buildings taken over are controlled by the Government.

Mr. DuTREMBLAY: If this principle applies in Ottawa, should it not apply in other cities?


John Dowsley Reid: In that case we should have to adopt a general policy.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What part of this
agreement provides for the payment by the Dominion of Canada of taxes, or their equivalent, to the city of Ottawa?


John Dowsley Reid: The Government does
not pay taxes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister says that the Government pays something in lieu of taxes.


John Dowsley Reid: The city in urging its claim for an increase put up the argument that the fire protection which it afforded the buildings of the Government necessitated a larger equipment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there anything to
show that the Government recognized that as a sound reason for increasing the allowance to the city? It must_ be recognized as a good argument if the Government is increasing the amount paid to the city.


John Dowsley Reid: The city claims that
they are losing a lot of money by reason of our taking over certain properties. They say that the taxes on the Government property in the city of Ottawa would amount to $483,887. We are not- settling for that, but we are allowing for fire protection, sprinkling of the streets and the use of sewerage, which is an important item. The city also estimated that the tax on civil servants would amount to about $60,000. Taking everything into consideration, the sub-committee that discussed the matter with the city council felt that the amount we are now allowing was reasonable.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We are to pay more
now than before the civil servants became assessable?


John Dowsley Reid: We paid $15,000 a year, and the civil servants were exempt from income taxation by the city. Now we are paying $75,000, and the civil servants, like any other citizens, will be assessable.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Now that the civil
servants are being subjected to assessment it must mean a large income to the city of Ottawa. I am not objecting to this at all because a civil servant should pay his way like any other citizen. But we got along with a payment of $15,000 formerly, when civil servants were not contributing anything, and now that they are going to contribute to the income of the city we are raising the city's allowance to $75,000. I do not understand such business, nor can I see any reason whatever for it. We must have been robbing the city to a large extent in former years if it now appears to be necessary that we should increase their allowances by such a large amount. I think the committee requires the fullest possible explanation for this increase from $15,000 to $75,000.


John Dowsley Reid: The city claimed that $15,000 was not by any means commensurate with the value of the services they rendered the Government, and I think myself that the Government were not paying adequately for those services. The fact of the 'Government having the use of the sewers was a matter of gieat consideration. We would have had to build sewers for all Government property, and the interest on that would amount to a large sum; and we would of course have to have our own fire protection equipment, with men to look after that property and be ready in case of fire,, which would be an annual charge. Again, we would have to keep the streets in front of our own property properly watered. Taking everything into consideration we considered that the city was certainly losing a large amount of money annually, when it was paid only $15,000. As regards the civil servants, it was arranged many years ago that they should be exempt from income taxation, but we could see no reason why the Government should assume that liability in the city of Ottawa and not elsewhere. Civil servants in Ottawa should be put on the same basis as those in any other part of the Dominion so far as income taxation is concerned. I admit that the increase is a large one, but for many months the city refused to accept even it, and it was only latterly that they came to the conclusion that they would accept it for a term of five years. We thought that it should be for a term of ten years, but eventually we compromised and decided on five years. I do not know that in the increased amount the Government will be paying too much for the services which are rendered by the city.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the minister should point out that the Government is also increasing the grant to the Improvement Commission from $60,000 to $150,000.


John Dowsley Reid: It was $100,000 and we are increasing it to $150,000.


John Howard Sinclair: The Government are getting into the habit of wobbling on this question of the taxation of Dominion Government property. There are two positions to take. One is that we will pay taxes on our property throughout the Dominion and the other is that we will not pay any taxes on Dominion Government property to municipalities. We must live up to one or other of these positions. If we are going to pay the city of Ottawa something in lieu of taxation because it furnishes water and provides sewers, that must also apply to the town in which I live where the public buildings are also provided with drainage, fire protection, and other services. The same principle will apply to every town in Canada. The minister made a big mistake when he capitulated to some of the towns in Ontario in regard to the Grand Trunk. It has brought him trouble already. It has brought him an application from Halifax for a similar concession, and it will bring him applications from all over the Dominion. The country has always proceeded upon the basis that no taxation would be paid and it was so understood whenever a town or city got an expenditure made upon a public building. These public buildings are erected at vast expense to the Dominion, the people are glad to get them, and they have always been glad, until a very recent time, to free them from taxation. Now we are drifting in the wrong direction unless we intend to take the question up boldly and pay taxes all over the Dominion. I do not like to hear the minister say that he is giving this money in lieu of taxes because there are services such as fire protection and sewers provided by the city of Ottawa.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
John Dowsley Reid: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that there is an advance of $100,000 and that we get nothing for it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Nothing but what we had before.


John Dowsley Reid: Before, we were paying $100,000 to the Improvement Commission, and that amount was expended in beautifying and improving the city of Ottawa, the capital of the Dominion. Fifty thousand dollars of the amount that is being paid is for the Improvement Commission, making $150,000 to be devoted to that work; so that we are getting this increased expenditure for the purpose of beautifying the capital city. I think every hon. member will agree that the capital of the Dominion should Ibe made as attractive as the capital of any other country. The hon. gentleman has asked: "What would the city of Ottawa be without the Parliament buildings"? The Mayor of Ottawa asks: "What would Parliament be without the city of Ottawa "? If we had not the city of Ottawa to make all these expenditures, would we not have to expend a large amount on sewers, waterworks, fire protection, hospitals for our employees, schools, street watering and police protection.


Andrew Ross McMaster: You have the Dominion Police?


John Dowsley Reid: That is around our own buildings. There are large expenditures that the Government would otherwise have to make. Taking all these things into consideration I do not think the amount is unreasonable. When the discussion commenced, they wanted $80,000 and that did not take into consideration the Improvement Commission at all. We have cut that down to $75,000 and we are allowing $150,000 for improving the city which, I think hon. members will agree, is a good expenditure to be made in the capital.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has the minister a statement of the assessed value of the Government property and the tax rate in the city of Ottawa?


John Dowsley Reid: The taxable real estate in Ottawa was assessed in 1918, for taxation 1919, at $98,983,599.


William Stevens Fielding: Is that Government
property?


John Dowsley Reid: That is the assessment
on the whole of the property in the city of Ottawa. The Government occupies real estate in Ottawa valued, after deducting the value of local Government institutions, at $21,158,190. The Government leases and occupies in addition premises assessed at $4,025,749, and therefore owns, or occupies on lease, about one-fifth of the real estate of the city.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did the minister mention the amount the city estimates it lost through the exemption of civil servants from taxation on their incomes?


John Dowsley Reid: I mentioned an amount in the neighbourhood of $60,000. When the City Council made their claim they estimated the amount at $57,175.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That makes
a total increase of about $170,000 over what was formerly given.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.
Mr. MeKENZIE: Very valuable property in the city is rented by the Government, and I presume the owners of the property pay the taxes. The few buildings that the country owns in Ottawa should be exempt from taxation. In Halifax, which is not nearly as large as this city, there is far more Government property than there is in Ottawa. The amount of Government-owned property in Halifax, comprising the Fortifications and all the military works in the harbour, is immense, but not a cent of taxes is being paid on that property
either to the city of Halifax or to the province of Nova Scotia. Taxes are being paid to the municipality of Ottawa upon Government property, but nobody from Halifax is asking for the payment of any taxes as far as I know.


William Stevens Fielding: There was a deputation here lately asking for the payment of taxes, and they are hoping, that their demands will be met.
Mr. MeKENZIE: I am not making any argument with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) about what may take place; the Lord only knows what may transpire with this Government, but so far no taxes have been paid to the city of Halifax although there are thousands of dollars' worth of Government property in that city to every thousand dollars' worth of Government-owned property in Ottawa. How can the Government reconcile its payment of taxes to the city of Ottawa when it has not paid a dollar to the city of Halifax? The Government have given out to the world that they are going to pay taxes on the Grand Trunk and Canadian National railway properties, and I suppose when the news went down to Halifax the municipal corporation there said: If the Government are getting so generous as to undertake to pay taxes everywhere, why should they not do so here? I really do not know how the Government can answer the city of Halifax and decline to pay taxes upon the millions of dollars' worth of property they own there while at the same time quite willing to pay taxes in Ottawa and also upon the Grand Trunk and other railway property. I think the principle should be adhered to that Crown property is not taxable.


John Dowsley Reid: We are not giving this grant in the way of taxes. In the capitals of other countries, notably the United States, grants are made almost equivalent to what the Government's taxes would be in return for the benefits they enjoy, as well as towards improving the city. We get the benefits from the municipal corporation I have mentioned and the amount that we are paying, $75,000, certainly is not any too much. I would not like it to go out to the country that what we are paying is by way of taxeA The hon. gentleman has mentioned the Grand Trunk and the Canadian National railways. These lines have been operated by private companies and should continue to pay taxes when they are operated in competition with companies of that class.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no
date mentioned in the schedule, it is left blank. What is the reason of that?


John Dowsley Reid: I was going to move to amend the agreement so that the date should be the 30th day of March, 1920, and adopt the same date in the schedule.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are we to
understand that the minister has already signed this agreement? If this is a concluded contract, what is the object of submitting the matter to Parliament?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, I have signed the agreement, but I cannot pay out the money until it is voted by Parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There appears to be no clause in the contract which recognizes Parliment one way or the other. The minister should have inserted some provision making the agreement subject to approval by Parliament.


John Dowsley Reid: The deputy minister
tells me there is such a provision in the agreement. Yes, I notice it reads that payment is to be made quarterly when due "as soon as may be after the passing of the Act confirming this agreement."


Georges Henri Boivin: It is in the first clause of the agreement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That has
reference to the payment of the $75,000.


William Stevens Fielding: Does not the depart-men pay for water supplied to public buildings in other places?
Mr. J. D.'REID: Yes, in accordance with local rates.


William Stevens Fielding: But not taxes?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 40, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway-Mr. Davis.
Bill No. 41, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill No. 42, respecting the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company-Mr. Clements.
Bill No. 43, respecting the Kettle Valley Railway Company-Mr. Green.
Bill No. 44, respecting the Montreal Joliette and Transcontinental Junction Railway Company-Mr. Denis. ,
On motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell, the House adjourned at 11.16 p.m.
Wednesday, April 7, 1920.